[#OFFICE-1798] ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 N 1078 : DEFECT REPORT NUMBER JP2-6

OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 N 1078 : DEFECT REPORT NUMBER JP2-6

Created: 28/May/09 04:23 PM Updated: 17/May/10 01:59 PM

Component/s:

None

Affects Version/s:

ODF 1.0, ODF 1.0 (second edition), ODF 1.0 Errata 02

Fix Version/s:

ODF 1.0 Errata CD 5

Proposal:	Delete (See below.)
Resolution:	« Hide 7.3.2 Table of Content Entry Template Delete the sentence: "(See below.)" Show » 7.3.2 Table of Content Entry Template Delete the sentence: "(See below.)"

Sub-Tasks:

All

Open

Sub-Task Progress:

~~ODF 1.2 Part 1 8.3.3 ODF 1.0 Restriction missing in ODF 1.2~~

Applied

Patrick Durusau

Description

« Hide

Transcribed from http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/1078.htm

Original author: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
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

All

Comments

Change History

Sort Order:

[ Permalink | « Hide ]

Patrick Durusau added a comment - 06/Jul/09 11:43 AM

Proposal filed.

[ Permalink | « Hide ]

Dennis Hamilton added a comment - 18/Mar/10 09:52 PM

Another way to accomplish this is to say where "below" is, i.e.,

"""
(See Template Outline Level, below.)
"""

This is the destination of the link in the word "below." in the ODF 1.0 specification.

The link is also found in the IS 26300:2006 PDF, although you have to mouse-over to see it and it doesn't work in print.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I don't propose changing the resolution.

[ Permalink | « Hide ]

Svante Schubert added a comment - 17/May/10 01:23 PM

Dennis, I was puzzled if you wanted a new resolution at all. In case you suggested to replace ""(See below.)"" with "(See Template Outline Level, below.)" instead of deleting it.
I (and two collegues I asked) find it complexer therefore more puzzling to the reader of the spec, therefore decided against it.

[ Permalink | « Hide ]

Dennis Hamilton added a comment - 17/May/10 01:59 PM

Svante, it is possible to say where "(see below)" is intended (there is a link in the "below" in ODF 1.0).

If it was important enough to say it (I don't know that), then there is a way to say it correctly.

I have no objection to omission of "(see below)."