On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:31 -0600, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Moreover, doesn't the language:
>
> > ODF v1.2 consists of the following files and schemas:
> >
> answer the question?
>
> the "ODF v1.2" in question is the one specified by the files and schemas.
>
> What seems unclear about that?
Similarly on Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:26 -0600,
wrote:
> We're only required to
> identify which version of the specification, of the ones uploaded,
> will
> comprise the authoritative version. We could have just as well
> identified
> them by name, e.g., *.odt. But as stated in the ballot, it is
> unambiguous
> which files are the ODF ones. We agree that they are the ones with
> the
> odt file extension, right?
Not to be nitpicky, but the motion reads:
> Shall further from the three versions of the specification documents
> (ODF, PDF and HTML) that will be produced after approval as committee
> draft the ODF versions be the authoritative ones?
so this refers to versions of the specification that _will_ be produced
after approval. So it does not refer to the files that are already
available.
>
> Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend!
Thank you! I do. I hope you do too!
Andreas
