atom feed8 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.officeRE: [office] Public Comment #217 - Au...
FromSent OnAttachments
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgMar 30, 2009 5:19 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonMar 30, 2009 6:57 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonMar 30, 2009 6:57 am 
Robin CoverMar 30, 2009 7:26 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonMar 30, 2009 8:13 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonMar 30, 2009 9:23 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comMar 30, 2009 2:08 pm 
Mary McRaeMar 30, 2009 3:09 pm 
Subject:RE: [office] Public Comment #217 - Authoritative Version of Specification
From:Dennis E. Hamilton (denn@acm.org)
Date:Mar 30, 2009 6:57:24 am
List:org.oasis-open.lists.office

I don't think that the easily-editable form of the specification should be considered authoritative. Also, because of device and implementation differences, font substitutions, page reflow, etc., we have no control over variations in appearance and the difficulty of associating comments and defect reports against a fixed-form.

I recommend that the PDF be considered authoritative (and if it could be digitally signed that would be good too). This provides more reliable page-chapter-verse cross-referencing and discussion in reports, submitted defects, etc.

- Dennis

-----Original Message----- From: Mich@Sun.COM [mailto:Mich@Sun.COM] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 05:20 To: OpenDocument Mailing List Subject: [office] Public Comments 214 to 256

[ ... ]

217: Question which document (HTML, PDF or ODF) of ODF 1.1 is the authoritative version. The OASIS TC process nowadays requires that one of the versions is declared to be the authoritative document. This was not the case for ODF 1.1. Resolution: For the future, declare ODF version to be authoritative.

[ ... ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php