|
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34
Document Description and Processing Languages Secretariat: Japan (JISC) |
| DOC. TYPE | Defect Report | |||||||
| TITLE | Defect Report on ISO/IEC 26300: 2006, Information technology -- Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 | |||||||
| SOURCE | National Body of Japan | |||||||
| PROJECT | JTC1.34.26300 | |||||||
| STATUS | This document is circulated for review by WG 1 and subsequent submittal to OASIS via SC 34. | |||||||
| ACTION ID | FYI | |||||||
| DUE DATE | ||||||||
| DISTRIBUTION | P, O and L Members of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 ; ISO/IEC JTC 1 Secretariat; ISO/IEC ITTF | |||||||
| ACCESS LEVEL | Open | |||||||
| ISSUE NO. | 40 | |||||||
| FILE |
|
| ||||||
Secretariat ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34
- IPSJ/ITSCJ (Information Processing Society of Japan/Information Technology Standards Commission of Japan)*
Room 308-3, Kikai-Shinko-Kaikan Bldg., 3-5-8, Shiba-Koen, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0011 Japan
*Standard Organization Accredited by JISC
Telephone: +81-3-3431-2808;
Facsimile: +81-3-3431-6493;
E-mail: kimura@itscj.ipsj.or.jp
Japanese national member body for SC34
| Part 1 | |
|---|---|
| WG SECRETARIAT | JISC |
| DATE CIRCULATED BY WG SECRETARIAT | 2008-9-18 |
| DEADLINE ON RESPONSE FROM EDITOR | 2008-11-18 |
| Part 2 | |
| SUBMITTER | Japan |
| FOR REVIEW BY | SC34 and OASIS ODF TC |
| DEFECT REPORT CONCERNING | IOS/IEC 26300--Information technology -- Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-1 |
|---|---|
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 3.1.15 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The second sentence in the second paragraph in this clause does not allow optional subtags, while such subtags are allowed in the referenced document, namely RFC 3066. Does ODF intentionally disallow subtags? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Just reference to RFC 3066 and stop there. Do not say anything about what is normatively specified in RFC 3066. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-2 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 6.7.2 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | "If the value of a field is fixed" and "If the value of the field is not fixed" are unclear. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Use "If the value of the text:fixed attribute is "true"" and "If the value of the text:fixed attribute is not "true"", instead. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-3 |
| QUALIFIER | error |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Use Outline", Clause 7.3.1 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The last line "See section 7.1 for more information on index marks." is not needed in this subclause. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Delete this sentence. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-4 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Use Index Source Styles", Clause 7.3.1 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | Is the attribute "text:use-index-source-styles" orthogonal to the text:use-outline and text:use-index-marks attributes? For example, can text:use-index-marks="true" and text:use-index-source-styles="true" coexist? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-5 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Index Scope", Clause 7.3.1 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | What does "the current chapter" mean? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-6 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 7.3.2 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The phrase "see below" does not make sense, since the schema frament below this paragraph does not say anything about "there must not be more than one element for any outline level". |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-7 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Use Caption", Clasue 7.4.1 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | If the value of the attribute "text:use-caption" is "false", what is used as illustration indexes? If "true", what is used? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-8 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Copy Outline Levels", Clasue 7.7.1 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The subclause is underspecified. In particular, what is meant by the phrase "gathered at the outline level"? Is each entry displayed together with the outline level or section number? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-9 |
| QUALIFIER | omission |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 7.8.2 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | What is the format of "auto mark files"? Are they XML documents? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-10 |
| QUALIFIER | inconsistency |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clasue 7.12 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The first sentence is "There are eight types of index entries", but there are seven types only. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-11 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Protected", Clause 8.1.1 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The last sentence is unclear and in conclict with the schema.
If a table is protected, all of the table elements and the cell elements with a style:cell-protect attribute set to true are protected. First, style:cell-protect attributes cannot take the value "true". Does this sentence rather talk about table:protect attributes? Second, does the "with ..." condition apply to both table elements and cell elements? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-12 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Visibility", Clause 8.1.2 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The sentence "the table that does not select the table row" does not make sense. How can a table select rows? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-13 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Visibility", Clause 8.1.2 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | Is the second occurrence of the word "invisible" in "Collapsed rows have been made invisible by invisible in the UI directly." unnecessary? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-14 |
| QUALIFIER | error |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Cell Current Currency", Clause 8.1.3 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | Replace "data type" in "This attribute is only evaluated for cells whose data type is currency." by "value type". The same error is repeated in the following subclauses. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-15 |
| QUALIFIER | error |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Table Cell Protection", Clause 8.1.3 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The prose mentions the table:protected attribute, but the schema describes the table:protect attribute (no "ed"). |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-16 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 8.3.4 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | This subclause is incomprehensible. Please provide more information. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-17 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clauses 8.4.3 thru 8.4.5 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | In our opinion, subclauses 8.4.3 thru 8.4.5 are underspecified
and incomprehensible. They do not provide enough background
information or examples. Moreover, the semantics of
trace-dependents, remove-dependents, trace-precedents,
remove-precedents, trace-errors. trace-dependents and
remove-dependents are not specified at all. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-18 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Protected Sections" in Clause 4.4.1, "Protected" in Clause 8.1.1, and Clause 8.5.1 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | Hashing for the text:protection-key and table:protection-key attribute of ODF 1.0 is not specified at all. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-20 |
| QUALIFIER | omission |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Search Criteria Must Apply to Whole Cell", Clause 8.5.( |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | This clause is incomprehensible. Where are "search criteria" specified? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Specify what are "search criteria" and where they are specified. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-21 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Condition" in Clause 8.5.2 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The BNF in this subclause is very unclear. Where is whitespace allowed? Which symbol is a non-terminal symbol and which is a terminal symbol? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Use ISO 14977. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-22 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Data Pilot Tables" in Clause 8.8 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | What does "it" in the first sentence mean? Data pilot tables allow it to analyze and evaluate data contained in spreadsheet tables. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-23 |
| QUALIFIER | omission |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Function" in Clauses 8.6.10, 8.8.4, 8.8.7, and 8.9 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The semantics of the functions auto, average, count, countnums, max, min, product, stdev, stdevp, sum, var and varp are not specified. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Define the semantics of these functions. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-24 |
| QUALIFIER | error |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Table in Clause 8.7.1 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | "... F G G I" appears to be incorrect. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Replace "... F G G I" by "... F G H I". |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-25 |
| QUALIFIER | omission |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clauses 9.2.9 and 15.19 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | These subclauses are understandable only if the reader uses OpenOffice and examine the output. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Add diagrams, and explain start positions, start shapes, start gule points, and so forth. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-26 |
| QUALIFIERM | error |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | "Used Hierarchy" in Clause 8.8.4 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | "The value means that no hierarchy should be applied at all." does not make sense. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Insert "-1" between "value" and "means". |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-27 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 9.2.11 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT |
This clause fails to define what is a measure line. The only way to understand this paragraph is to invoke OpenOffice.org and see its measure lines. Such descriptions would be acceptable if they appeared in manuals of OpenOffice.org. But standards should make clear what is meant without relying on commercial implementations. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Specify shapes of measure lines with diagrams. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-28 |
| QUALIFIER | error |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 15.14.12 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT |
The second sentence in this clause is: This attribute is only interpreted if the value of the current style:repeat attribute is tiled. However, the schema does not allow "tiled" as a permissible value of @style:repeat. The permissible values are "no-repeat", "repeat" , or "stretch". Should we replace "tiled" with "repeat"? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-29 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 15.20 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | This subclause is understandable only if the reader uses OpenOffice and examines the output. Such descriptions are very inappropriate as ISO/IEC standards. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Add diagrams and explain "reference points", "measure line", "guides", and so forth. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-30 |
| QUALIFIER | error |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 15.24.4 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | dr3d:normals-direction appears to be dr3d:texture-mode |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-31 |
| QUALIFIER | omission |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 15.24.4 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | This clause is very underspecified. What is the semantics of "replace", "modulate", and "blend"? |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-32 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 15.22.8 thru 15.22.10 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | These subclauses are incomprehensible. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Add diagrams and introduce more explanatory text. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-33 |
| QUALIFIER | error |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 17.7.4 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT |
The <encryption-data> element should read The <manifest:encryption-data> element |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-34 |
| QUALIFIER | error |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 17.5 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | "relative-path reference" in 17.5 is never defined in RFC 3987. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Use the correct term "relative IRI reference". |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-35 |
| QUALIFIER | clarification required |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 17.5 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT | The last paragraph in 17.5 should be a non-normative note, since the behaviour of absolute IRI references is specified in RFC 3986 and RFC 3987. |
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | Rewrite this paragaraph as a note. |
| DEFECT REPORT NUMBER | JP2-36 |
| QUALIFIER | error |
| REFERENCES IN DOCUMENT | Clause 15.31.4 |
| NATURE OF DEFECT |
Two attribute names in 15.31.4 are incorrect. The schema has
while the prose mentions the chart:axis-interval-major attribute and the
chart:axis-interval-minor attribute.
|
| SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE SUBMITTER | |