"Dennis E. Hamilton" <> wrote on 06/07/2010
06:56:35 PM:
>
> I think the question isn't so much about a standard being published in
the
> format it describes, although it would be nice to make sure it is
backward
> compatible. I think the question is about ODF 1.2 drafts for public
review
> being published in a format that has no approved standard (yet). Since
> there are also HTML and PDF versions made available, I don't think there
is
> much of a problem unless a reviewer stumbles on a discrepancy between
one of
> those and the authoritative ODF flavor.
>
The TC is required to provide the CDs in editable source, PDF and X/HTML.
The format of the editable source is a factual question. If it was indeed
authored in draft ODF 1.2 as written by OOo 3.2.x, then we are obliged to
deliver the document in that format. If it was written in Word DOC format
or WordPerfect format, then we would deliver it in that. There is no
requirement that the editable format be a standard.
>
> On the other hand, I don't expect the reliance on OpenOffice 3.2.x to
change
> in how we publish ODF versions of these CDs and the subsequent CS and OS
> authoritative flavors. (I'm not so clear on the transposition to a
> published IS through JTC1 though.)
>
In JTC1 specifications are balloted and published in a single format only,
typically PDF.
-Rob
