On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 12:54 -0400, wrote:
> The OASIS's Approved Errata process says: "Once approved, the Approved
> Errata shall be with the specification it corrects, in any publication of
> that specification."
>
> Of course, it is possible that someone creates a new implementation based
> on a pre-errata version of ODF 1.0 that they downloaded a year ago.
>
> But the intent is:
>
> 1) The TC's work should be thoroughly reviewed before submitting it for
> approval at Committee Specification and above.
> 2) That, combined with the 60-day public review at Committee Specification
> stage, should find any critical technical flaws in the text.
> 3) Once approved as an OASIS Standard, we can fix minor (Not Substantive)
> errors via the Errata process
> 4) But if some more serious technical flaw is found, especially one that
> would require modifying existing conformant implementations, it should be
> fixed in a new version of the standard.
>
> Note that a new version does not necessarily mean ODF 1.2. If we found a
> set of critical technical errors in ODF 1.0, we could always make an ODF
> 1.01 version and send that through the approval process. I'm not
> recommending this, but that is the route for dealing with changes that
> impact conformance.
Perhaps one should then stick with the intent: the missing "h" is
clearly not a "serious technical flaw" but changing the spec would
impact on any implementation.
So I really see no reason to confuse things by making that change (I
intentionally do not say "correction").
Andreas
