DCOR 2 comments

Francis Cave francis at franciscave.com
Tue May 3 23:57:51 CEST 2011

Hi Rob

For the record, the Japanese comment corresponds exactly to DR 33 in the
first set of Japanese Defect Reports - see SC 34 N 942. 

I forget the detail, but I think there is an error in one of the other
Japanese DRs relating to XSL in that first set of DRs, and I think this
caused this particular DR to be overlooked. It clearly slipped passed all of
us at the crucial moment.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 03 May 2011 01:14
> To: francis at franciscave.com
> Cc: sc34wg6 at vse.cz
> Subject: DCOR 2 comments
> 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
> comment.  This could be done by Japan or by OASIS.   (This particular
> defect is already fixed in the ODF 1.,2 text).
> Regards,
> -Rob

More information about the sc34wg6 mailing list