[dsdl-discuss] Re: Synchronization of

MURATA Makoto said:
> Although the need to publish the JIS ODF makes the point
> clearer, I believe that this issue has nothing to do with
> translation.
>
> The OASIS ODF 1.0 has lots of bugs. They are technical errors. They
> are not wordsmithing. For example, tags in the ODF schema sometimes
> differ from those in the body text.

That is the kind of "technical inconsistencies" that I think we need a
reverse fast that I think we need a reverse fast-track commitment from the
maintainers for.

> In my opinion, ISO/IEC is oblidged to fix its (net-yet-published)
> ISO/IEC 26300. Even if the OASIS ODF TC agrees to publish errata,
> such errata apply to the OASIS ODF 1.0 standard only. SC34 has
> to publish technical corrigenda to ISO/IEC 26300.

Do you have a sense of which is more reliable, the names in the schemas or
the names in the text? I have felt that there was a flaw in the editing
requirements for WG1 specs; on the one hand we are not supposed to repeat
material (because it may contradict itself) but on the other hand we need
to provide schemas which necessarily repeat material in the text. Should
all schemas be informative? I hope not. Perhaps we need an extra
interpretaion clause to say "Where the body of a standard and its schema
differ, the intent of the body of the standard should be follwed."

I don't know if that is workable. Another approach might be to build into
the fast track process some idea of a scheduled andendum for schema
correction, occurring say six months after adoption of the standard. That
gives a better process by which some of the standard. That gives a better
process by which some of the checks that a non-fast-track standard gets.

Cheers
Rick

--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)