ODF 1.0 Errata CD04 Defects

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 Should not OASIS ODF 1.0 Approved Errata 01 remain in this location until superseded?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 ***