Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Applied
    • Affects Version/s: ODF 1.0, ODF 1.0 (second edition), ODF 1.1, ODF 1.2 Part 3 CD 2, ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD 5
    • Component/s: General
    • Labels:
      None
    • Environment:
    • Proposal:
      Hide

      Consider redeveloping all of the ODF 1.0 Errata as an Errata for ODF 1.1 that can become a Draft Corrigendum to the 1.1-aligned IS 26300. This would allow collaboration on understandability and satisfaction of resolution with WG6 without rushing resolution against 1.0 and IS 26300:2006 unamended.

      Although these are related to Defect Reports for ODF 1.0, ODF 1.0 ed.2, and IS 26300:2006, they need to be rolled up to ODF 1.1 Errata and also be harmonized appropriately with ODF 1.2. In particular, the identification of implementation-dependency in some of these needs to be eliminated or refined in ODF 1.2 if practicable.

      Show
      Consider redeveloping all of the ODF 1.0 Errata as an Errata for ODF 1.1 that can become a Draft Corrigendum to the 1.1-aligned IS 26300. This would allow collaboration on understandability and satisfaction of resolution with WG6 without rushing resolution against 1.0 and IS 26300:2006 unamended. Although these are related to Defect Reports for ODF 1.0, ODF 1.0 ed.2, and IS 26300:2006, they need to be rolled up to ODF 1.1 Errata and also be harmonized appropriately with ODF 1.2. In particular, the identification of implementation-dependency in some of these needs to be eliminated or refined in ODF 1.2 if practicable.
    • Resolution:
      Hide

      This collection of issues have been addressed in the issues it is referencing.
      The resolution of each issue has been written into the referenced issues.

      [The roll-up into Errata for ODF 1.1 and assurance that the defect does not remain in ODF 1.2 is still to be done.]

      Show
      This collection of issues have been addressed in the issues it is referencing. The resolution of each issue has been written into the referenced issues. [The roll-up into Errata for ODF 1.1 and assurance that the defect does not remain in ODF 1.2 is still to be done.]

      Description

      This is an appraisal of ODF 1.0 Errata CD04 based on review of the document. To assist in that review, a changed-tracked ODF 1.0 specification was prepared. It is uploaded at
      <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=37110>.

      The change-tracked document reflects all changes specified in Approved ODF 1.0 Errata 01 (Part 1 of CD04) and the proposed Part 2 in Errata CD04.

      1. GENERAL REMARKS ON ERRATA CD04

      ODF 1.0 Errata CD04 is found at
      <http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/cd04/>

      1.1 ODF 1.1 Errata CD04 is found at
      <http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/errata/>.
      This is surely a mistake. Should not OASIS ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 01 remain in this location until superseded?

      1.2 Errata CD04, p.5, start of Approved Errata Part 01:
      In the last line of the first paragraph, "N0492" should be "N0942".

      1.3 All Part 1 and Part 2 items.
      In general, the honoring of typographic style (include use of italic text and monospace fonts) in quoted passages and their replacements is absent. Appearance of monospace font styles in Part 2 is inconsistent.
      (In the change-tracked document, use of italic and monospace styles is maintained consistently with the styles in the OASIS ODF 1.0 Standard.)

      1.4 Part 1 Defect Items Not Resolved by Changes
      The use of the term "Rejected" is perhaps too abrupt in contrast with "No action" or something culturally softer in an international context.
      For N0942:30, it would be more helpful to explain why the defect was not applicable (i.e., that 15.4.1 does not mention 8.8.4 and a mention in a different section has been repaired).
      When ODF 1.0 Errata are transposed to ODF 1.1 and its IS 26300 alignment, I think we should look at gentler rewordings. It may also be useful to revisit N0942:89 on that occasion.

      1.5 Part 2 Defect Items Not Resolved by Changes
      There is a peculiar statement: "The behavior in question is implementation dependent for purposes of ISO 26300." It is not clear why the situation is any different for the purposes of ODF 1.0 (and why the statement is being made in a document that is specific to ODF 1.0). In any case, we are requested by SC34 WG6 to revisit these statements and provide explicit assertions in the specification when the provision in question implementation-dependent. These items are reflected in the detailed list, below.

      2. RESOLUTIONS FOR SPECIFIC DEFECT ITEMS (in section sequence)

      2.1.2, sub-heading Version
      N1309:6 OFFICE-2203 Resolution Seems Incomplete

      3.1.15 Language
      N1078:1 OFFICE-1793 Sharper resolution available

      4.4.1, sub-heading Protected Sections
      N1078:18 OFFICE-1810 **** NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT STATEMENT ****

      6.7.2 Fixed
      N1078:2 OFFICE-1794 Seems non-responsive or incomplete

      7.3.1 sub-headings Use Outline and Use Index Marks
      N1078:3 OFFICE-1795 **** CORECTION MADE IN WRONG PLACE ****

      7.3.1 sub-heading Use Index Source Styles
      N1078:4 OFFICE-1796 Explanation for no-change could be cleaner

      7.3.1 sub-heading Index Scope
      N1078:5 OFFICE-1797 **** Change is not responsive ****

      7.3.2 Table of Content Entry Template
      N1078:6 OFFICE-1798 There is a better correction

      7.7.1 sub-heading Use Copy Outline Levels
      N1078:8 OFFICE-1800 Seems non-responsive or incomplete

      8.8.1 sub-heading Protected
      N1078:11 OFFICE-1803 is default for style:cell-protect a factor?
      N1078:18 OFFICE-1810 **** NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT STATEMENT ****

      8.1.2 sub-heading Visibility
      N1078:13 OFFICE-1805 Confusion about invisibility for collapsed rows

      8.1.3 sub-heading Value Type
      N1078:14 OFFICE-1806 **** MISSED ERROR IN NAME OF ATTRIBUTE ****

      8.1.3 sub-heading Cell Current Numeric Value
      N1078:14 OFFICE-1806 **** MISSED OCCURRENCE OF THE DEFECT ****

      8.1.3 sub-headings Cell Current Currency, Cell Current Date Value, Cell Current Time Value, Cell Current Boolean Value, and cell Current String Value
      N1078:14 OFFICE-1806 **** "value type" insufficient and remarks about "only evaluated" misleading about when allowed ****

      8.1.3 sub-heading Table Cell Protection
      N1078:15 OFFICE-1807 **** TWO PROBLEMS MISSED ****

      8.3.4 Shapes
      N1078:16 OFFICE-1808 **** Restatement does not appear to improve. Does not resolve the original issue ****

      8.4.3 Detective, 8.4.4 Detective Operation, 8.4.5 Highlighted Range
      N1078:17 OFFICE-1809 Appears Insufficient

      8.5.1 Document Protection
      N1078:18 OFFICE-1810 **** NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT STATEMENT ****

      8.5.2 sub-heading Search Criteria Must Apply to Whole cell
      N1078:20 OFFICE-1811 Not section 8.5, not sure false case is accurate and what interaction with regular expression is – MAY BE TOO SUBSTANTIVE ****

      8.5.2 sub-heading Use Regular Expressions
      N1309:4 OFFICE-2201 **** NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT STATEMENT ****

      8.5.3 sub-heading Condition
      N1078:21 OFFICE-1812 **** INCOMPLETE CORRECTION. USE OF IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT OFF THE MARK ****

      8.6.10 sub-heading Function
      N1078:23 OFFICE-1814 **** NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT STATEMENT ****

      8.8 Data Pilot Tables
      N1078:22 OFFICE-1813 Insufficient explanation. Maybe needs further consideration?

      8.8.4 sub-heading Function
      N1078:23 OFFICE-1814 **** NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT STATEMENT ****

      8.8.4 sub-heading Used Hierarchy
      N1078:26 OFFICE-1817 May be another place for implementation dependency also, though implicit

      8.8.7 sub-heading Function
      N1078:23 OFFICE-1814 **** NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT STATEMENT ****

      8.9 sub-heading Function
      N1078:23 OFFICE-1814 **** NEEDS IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT STATEMENT ****

      9.2.5 sub-heading Sharpness
      N0942:66 (already-approved): Definite articles, "the", beter than "an" here.

      9.2.9 Connector
      N1078:25 OFFICE-1816 May need "further consideration required" (implementation dependent would be a massive problem)

      9.2.11 Measure
      N1078:27 OFFICE-1818 May need "further consideration required" and/or characteristics of the measure shape are implementation dependent (a forward reference to the appropriate styles section would have helped some).

      9.3 sub-heading Relative Sizes
      N0942:52 (already approved). The changed font style of "scale" is not explicit. *** NEEDS NEW ERRATA ITEM ***

      9.3.3 sub-heading Object Data
      N0942:60 might merit some additional thought

      9.3.11 sub-heading Common Image Map Attributes and Elements
      N0942:04 DIFFERENT FOR 1.0 AND 26300. Watch out for 1.1 ALIGNMENT.

      9.4.5 Extrude.
      N1078:32 OFFICE-1823 **** REVISION USES ELEMENT NAMES INSTEAD OF CORRECT ATTRIBUTE NAMES **** More considerations in OFFICE-1823

      9.4.6 Rotate.
      N078:32 OFFICE-1823 **** REVISION USES ELEMENT NAMES INSTEAD OF CORRECT ATTRIBUTE NAMES **** More considerations in OFFICE-1823

      9.5.2 sub-headings Extrusion First Light Harsh and Extrusion Second Light Harsh
      N1309:3 OFFICE-2200 harsh is not used this way to specify harsh lighting, it is a common default. "false" case is not defined at all. See OFFICE-2200. **** MAY NEED DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT STATEMENTS ****

      9.7.2 sub-heading Effect
      N0942:24 (already approved). SAME DEFECT IN 2 PLACES, ONLY CAUGHT IN ONE

      15.3.4 Border Line Width
      N0942:89 already approved. Something is missing in the relationship between the border lines proximate to headers and footers and border lines elsewhere, and their being the same.

      15.4.38 Text Combine
      N1309:7 OFFICE-2204 "WITHIN TWO LINES" STILL UNCLEAR - See OFFICE_2204

      15.5.38 Snap to Layout Grid
      N0942:67 (already-approved) typo in attribute name in first line

      15.19 Connector Properties (entire section)
      N1078:25 OFFICE-1816 *** NEEDS FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND DEFERRED RESOLUTION ***

      15.20 Measure Properties (entire section)
      N1078:29 OFFICE-1820 *** NEEDS FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND DEFERRED RESOLUTION ***

      15.22.8 End Angle
      N1078:32 OFFICE-1823 INCOMPLETE

      15.22.9 Close Front
      N1078:32 OFFICE-1823 INCOMPLETE

      15.22.10 Close Back
      N1078:32 OFFICE-1823 INCOMPLETE

      15.24.4 Mode
      N1078:31 OFFICE-1822 NOT RESPONSIVE?

      15.27.21 Wrapping
      N0942:92 (already approved). CORRECTION DUPLICATES A WORD

      15.27.31 Wrap Influence on Position
      N0942:95 (already approved). GRAMMAR ERROR IN CORRECTION

      15.31.4 Tickmarks
      N0942:79 (already approved). Minor wording defect

      17.5 Usage of URIs Within Packages
      N1078:34 OFFICE-1825
      N1078:35 OFFICE-1826

            • CHANGES CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ODF 1.0. These are about IS 26300 and perhaps ODF 1.1 provisions. ****

      Appendix B. References, [Zip] entry
      N1309:8 OFFICE-2205

            • CHANGE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ODF 1.0. A different reference is used than the one in IS 26300 (and presumably ODF 1.1). The one in ODF 1.0 is also referenced in ODF 1.2. ****
          • END ***

        Attachments

          Activity

            People

            • Assignee:
              svante.schubert#1#1 svante.schubert#1#1
              Reporter:
              orcmid Dennis Hamilton (Inactive)
            • Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: