Hello All,
Question: In order to attract an as wide as possible audience of this
Public Review process within the stated time-frame - to what extent were
the /"*technical presses, publications...."*/ informed with respect to
these activities.
Kindest regards.
Sheldon A. Britton
wrote:
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <> wrote on 08/07/2008
> 05:40:13 PM:
>
>
>> I notice with mild amusement that the Errata .odt document is claimed to
>>
> be
>
>> an version 1.2 document and that OO.o 2.4 invites me to download an
>>
> update
>
>> to OpenOffice. (I don't install beta versions of software that I am
>>
> using
>
>> for production purposes.)
>>
>>
>
> OASIS deliverables are provided in three formats: editable source, PDF
> and HTML or XHTML. Among those three there should be something to please
> everyone.
>
>
>> PS: For those who want to download the documents without them opening in
>> their browser, the folder is accessible at
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd02/
>>
>> PPS: Is there some reason the base document (Existing Standard link,
>>
> below)
>
>> is v1.0-os instead of the ISO 26300 counterpart, v1.0ed2-cs1? Does it
>> matter?
>>
>>
>
> Approved Errata apply to OASIS Standards. Only ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1 have
> the status of an OASIS Standard. ODF 1.0 (second edition) has the status
> of Committee Specification. If we wanted to updated ODF 1.0 (second
> edition) we could do that as well, through a slightly different procedure,
> yielding an updated Committee Specification. The ISO/IEC version will
> need to be corrected via the JTC1 process, based on the OASIS errata, once
> it is approved.
>
> Although in theory we could propose separate errata documents for all
> three OASIS texts, we need to ask whether that would be a worthwhile
> effort, and balance that with the needed effort in completing ODF 1.2
> where all of these errors, and many others are addressed.
>
> But certainly anyone who wishes to join the ODF TC with the object of
> working on ODF 1.0 errata is more than welcome. We could set up a
> subcommittee for that effort if needed. I note that such document format
> errata committees in JTC1/SC34 seem to attract large crowds, 20-25 people,
> larger by several times than the entire active membership of the OASIS ODF
> TC. But until that day comes, ODF 1.2 work will dominate the TC's agenda.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [mailto:]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 09:58
>> To:
>> Subject: [office-comment] Fw: [members] Public Review of OpenDocument
>>
> v1.0
>
>> Errata - 15 day review
>>
>> ----- Forwarded by Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM on 08/07/2008 12:55 PM
>>
> -----
>
>> From:
>> "Mary McRae" <>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> The specification document and related files are available here:
>>
>> Existing Standard:
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf
>> Standalone Errata:
>> Editable Source:
>>
>>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd02/OpenDocument-v1.0-errata-
>
>
>> cd-02.odt
>> PDF:
>>
>>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd02/OpenDocument-v1.0-errata-
>
>
>> cd-02.pdf
>> HTML:
>>
>>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd02/OpenDocument-v1.0-errata-
>
>
>> cd-02.html
>>
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>
>
>
>
