Partial working draft of Amendment 1 to ISO/IEC 26300:2006

[Patrick Durusau]

Francis,

Some quick comments:

On 6/15/2010 5:04 PM, Francis Cave wrote:
>
> Dear members of WG 6
>
> I am finally able to attach a partial working draft of Amendment 1. I 
> have got as far as the end of §14 (of ODF v1.1).
>
> Those of you who are familiar with the presentation of Amendments to 
> IS 29500 will see that I have adopted a similar approach, using 
> formatting to indicate insertions and deletions.
>
> In addition to needing to complete the draft with the changes in the 
> remainder of the standard, I am aware of the following significant 
> issues with this draft:
>
> - The Section numbers refer to ODF v1.1 and not ODF v1.0. This is 
> because the documents with which I have been working are based upon 
> ODF v1.1. I realise that these numbers will need to be changed to 
> refer to IS 26300:2006. This must be done before the draft is balloted.
>
Agreed.
>
> - I have not included any page numbers, for the same reason. This also 
> needs to be fixed before the draft is balloted.
>
Agreed.
>
> - I have not included any Defect Report or JIRA references. Do we need 
> to add these to the draft? They enable NBs to determine the source of 
> each amendment, especially where it relates to a specific DR submitted 
> by a member of SC 34. It may be that we don't need them in this case, 
> because it can be argued that all the amendments have the same source: 
> the published text of ODF v1.1 which OASIS submitted to JTC 1/SC 34 as 
> a basis for the Amendment. What do you think?
>
I have mixed feelings about this one.

On one hand I would prefer to avoid the work of referencing and 
insertion of the Defect Reports/JIRA references but on the other hand, I 
am sure that as a political issue, it could be helpful.

Suggestion: Assuming we could maintain the coordination, why not have a 
separate, explanatory document, that makes references to the Defect 
Reports or JIRA references? Just as an "aid" to national bodies without 
it adding content for discussion/debate to the amendment?

Thinking that the amendment needs to be just that, the amendment. There 
will be more than enough for discussion if we limit it to strictly what 
is required for that document.

> - The whole draft needs to be checked for accuracy. I would very much 
> appreciate the assistance of the Working Group in carrying out this task.
>
Would it be helpful to ask for volunteers for particular sections? As 
well as those of us who want to help review the entire draft? (Count me 
as one of the latter.)

Thanks for all the hard work!

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick
>
> This draft will form a major item for discussion at our next 
> teleconference meeting, which is scheduled to take place on 
> 2010-06-23, i.e. one week from now. I will circulate a meeting 
> reminder and draft agenda shortly.
>
> Francis Cave
>
> Convenor
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg6 mailing list
> sc34wg6 at vse.cz
> http://mailman.vse.cz/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg6
>    

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick at durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg6/attachments/20100623/3208506f/attachment-0001.htm>