wrote:
> In the end our choices are limited to:
>
> 1) Choose the ODF document as the authoritative document. This has the
> advantage, when viewed in the same editor, of being closest to what the
> editors actually wrote and saw. It has the disadvantage of not being an
> approved standard.
>
Hi Rob, all,
there are several subitems of 1) available, the most obvious one
being to switch OOo to 1.0/1.1 compat mode & perform a SaveAs.
That would make the authoritative odf content adhere to a published
standard. I ran a graphical comparison script on the output & found
exactly four minor differences, all due to numbering changes, but
those surely can be fixed manually.
> So I don't see any perfect choice here. Any OASIS TC needs to make a
> decision on this consideration, and whether you pick the editable source
> or a derived/generated version, there are opportunities for surprises.
>
Sure. But there are wise & not so wise choices, and I believe
publishing a standard in precisely the language it should define is
among the latter. ;)
Regards,
-- Thorsten
