On 2011-01-02, at 15:43, "" <
> wrote:
> "Andreas J. Guelzow" <> wrote on
> 01/02/2011
> 01:18:07 PM:
>
>>
>> Some of the comments on the JIRA issues state
>> "The comment is not in scope of the PRD02 public review."
>>
>> It is not quite clear to me what "in the scope of PRD02 public
>> review"
>> means. There are clearly some parts of the document that were not
>> since
>> the last review but whose meaning or interpretation has changed due
>> to
>> changes elsewhere.
>>
>> For example OFFICE-3583, the term in question there (escape angle)
>> was
>> replaced elsewhere with a different term (leaving angle), so while
>> there
>> was no change in this specific place the changes that were made
>> elsewhere have made this (in my mind) clearly an item in scope for
>> this
>> review.
>>
>
> The OASIS rule is: "Changes made to a committee draft after a
> review must
> be clearly identified in any subsequent review, and the subsequent
> review
> shall be limited in scope to changes made in the previous review."
>
> So the scope is limited to "changes made in the previous review".
>
> However, I'd tend to read that broadly, to include explicit text
> changes
> as well as those unchanged parts of the text whose interpretation has
> changed based on the explicit text changes.
I would agree with that reading, and so claim that OFFICE-3583 is in
fact in scope.
Andreas
