Collisions between IS 26300:2006/COR1 and the ODF 1.1 Alignment

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

In March 2010 I completed a comparison of the DIFF that is the basis for the
current Amendment and of the places where COR1 makes changes in ODF 1.0 and
IS 26300:2006.

I found four collisions that need to be attended to (enumerated in the
message below).  

However, the simplicity of these collisions confirmed, for me, that it is
safe to prepare the Amendment for FPDAM ballot against IS 26300:2006 without
concern for COR1.

Assuming that Errata 01 for the ODF 1.1 OASIS Standard is developed at OASIS
before the end of the FPDAM1 ballot (not technically difficult), we can then
make any further alignment with respect to COR1 and the prospective COR2 by
providing comments against the FPDAM1.  

I have recorded ODF TC JIRA Issue OFFICE-3024,
<http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3024>, for paying
attention to this when ODF 1.1 Errata 01 is prepared and also when comments
against FPDAM1 need to be developed as part of final alignment.

 - Dennis


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton at acm.org] 
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201003/msg00432.html>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 18:23
To: robert_weir at us.ibm.com
Cc: 'Michael Brauer'; 'ODF TC List'; 'Patrick Durusau';
Svante.Schubert at Sun.COM
Subject: RE: [office] Re: OFFICE-2608 and Errata CD04 Defects

I checked the comparison of the COR1/Errata01 changes made to ODF 1.1 and
the diff that Patrick prepared between 1.1 and IS 26300.

There are only 4 collisions that have to be watched for.  I think we might
as well do (A) for now and adjust manually for (B).  These are the
(potential) collisions to watch out for:

 1. Section 9.3.11 sub-section Common Image Map Attributes and Elements.
There is an Errata01/COR1 change *nearby* but an amendment done as change
marking can be structured to miss that.

 2. Section 15.27.22 Errata01/COR1 change to style:wrap-dynamic-threshold
(not -treshold) in the schema fragment has already been changed in 1.1 and
it looks like a delta from IS 26300:2006.

 3. Section 16.1 Datatypes under custom data types has an errata change to
-length and there are different changes (in other parts of the same text)
made in 1.1 in contrast to IS 26300:2006.

 4. Appendix B Errata01/COR1 change to [DOMEvents] appears to be clobbered
by [DOMEvents2] and [DOMEvents3] in ODF 1.1.

 - Dennis

PS: If there is to be a full-up amended IS 26300 document produced, I think
it should not be until the very end when the amendment and the two
Corrigenda are applied, with 1.1 and IS 26300:2006/fixed-up all assured to
be in synch.

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir at us.ibm.com] 
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201003/msg00431.html>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 16:39
To: dennis.hamilton at acm.org
Cc: 'Michael Brauer'; 'ODF TC List'; 'Patrick Durusau';
Svante.Schubert at Sun.COM
Subject: RE: [office] Re: OFFICE-2608 and Errata CD04 Defects

[ ... ]

I think we have a choice of 3 initial texts we could do the initial diff 
from:

A) ISO/IEC 26300
B) ISO/IEC 26300 + COR 1
C) ISO/IEC 26300 + COR 2

I don't think we want to wait for C to happen, since the DCOR ballot has 
not yet started, and we still need to make some more changes on the OASIS 
side and have another 15 day review.  So COR 2 is at least 4 months away. 

We could wait for COR 1 and option B) if we wanted, since the ballot for 
that has ended and we know what those corrections are.

Or we could do option A.  I think that is what Patrick's initial diff was.

I don't have a strong opinion on A versus B. 

-Rob

[ ... ]