DCOR 2 comments

robert_weir at us.ibm.com robert_weir at us.ibm.com
Tue May 3 02:14:11 CEST 2011

Hello Francis,

At our ODF TC call today we reviewed the NB DCOR2 ballot comments.  Our 
analysis and recommendations follow.

For the comments from DIN, on the page and line number references, these 
concern defects in the editing instructions as presented in the DCOR text. 
 The OASIS Errata do not have these defects since the OASIS presentation 
of the editing instructions was different.  Since the underlying 
corrections made by the DCOR2 editing instructions are correct. we 
recommend that the Project Editor supply the missing page and line numbers 
for these items in the published corrigenda.

The JISC comment, concerning the XSL reference in 15.4.19, does not appear 
to correspond to any submitted NB defect report on IS 26300,   Our 
understanding was that WG6 agreed previously that any additional defect 
reports on IS 26300 would be applied after the FPDAM.  We've been 
operating under this assumption in the ODF TC, and have made our ODF 1.1 
planning and editing work based on this understanding.  So rather than put 
the COR out of sync with the OASIS Errata by expanding the scope of the 
DCOR to include new defects, we recommend that we stick to the plan of 
synching on the amendment.  With that plan, the ODF TC would publish an 
Errata for ODF 1.1 that would reconcile the OASIS text to incorporate 
relevant changes from the published ODF 1.0 Errata, as well as any 
necessary changes based on FPDAM ballot comments.  The easiest way to 
ensure the Japan defect is addressed there is to submit that as an FPDAM 
comment.  This could be done by Japan or by OASIS.   (This particular 
defect is already fixed in the ODF 1.,2 text).



More information about the sc34wg6 mailing list