Our SLAs say that we'll announce a public review within 5
business days of receipt - as long as the requirements are met. Typically I get
them done much more quickly, and next week OASIS is having a week-long
face-to-face meeting in Billerica (Boston) so I'm trying to get any
announcements done before then.
Regards,
Mary
From: Richard Schwerdtfeger
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:33
PM
To: Peter Korn
Cc: ;
; ; ;
; ; Robert
Weir
Subject: Re: [office-accessibility] Requested editorial change
to Appendix E in the ODF 1.1 specification
Peter, Mary,
I was under the impression that we had until Monday,
but if it means missing the timeline then we will put this in the 60 day
comments and address it then. I do not want to hold up the 60 day public
review for this.
Best Regards,
Rich
Rich
Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility
Architect/Strategist
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review
Board
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer
"
src="gif00070.gif" width=16 border=0>Peter Korn
<>
Peter Korn
<>
Sent by:
07/27/2006 11:14 AM
To
cc
Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
, ,
, Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus,
Subject
Re: [office-accessibility] Requested editorial change to
Appendix E in the ODF 1.1 specification
Hi
Mary,
The change we would like to make is a small clarification change
in the
non-normative portion of the document - Appendix
E.
Separately from Michael (who I believe has left work for the day in
Germany) I understand that if the document doesn't go out today, we miss
our timeline.
I believe this change can be made within the 60 day
public review (as an
editorial change, especially as it is
non-normative).
So, I suggest you do NOT delay, but go ahead with PR
this afternoon.
Rich - is this acceptable to
you?
Peter
> I was about to announce the PR this afternoon
... Michael, let me know
> if I should hold up or if you'd instead like
this handled as a comment
> submitted during the public review to be
incorporated prior to CS vote.
>
> Mary
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
*From:* Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:]
>
*Sent:* Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:27 AM
> *To:*
> *Cc:*
;
>
; Robert Weir; ;
>
> *Subject:*
[office-accessibility] Requested editorial change to
>
Appendix E in the ODF 1.1 specification
>
>
Michael,
>
> The ODF Accessibility Subcommittee
would like to make an editorial
> change to the
non-normative Appendix E.3 of the ODF 1.1
>
specification.
>
> Change:
>
>
Users importing non-OpenDocument slides that contain tables
need
> access to the table structure via their assistive
technology.
> Therefore tables imported into OpenDocument
from another file
> format must have their structure
preserved, and should be imported
> as embedded
spreadsheets.
>
> to:
>
>
Users importing non-OpenDocument slides that contain tables need
>
access to the table structure via their assistive
technology.
> Therefore tables imported into an
OpenDocument application from
> another file format must
have their structure preserved, and when
> saved as ODF
should be saved as embedded spreadsheets.
>
> The
way this was previously worded was ambiguous in that Open
>
Document applications may import powerpoint slides natively and
>
saying that you would need to convert the document to an
embedded
> spreadsheet for a powerpoint slide would be
incorrect.and we would
> like to see this
changed.
>
> We would like to have this appear in
the ODF 1.1 specification
> going out for public review
next week however we do not want this
> to hold up the 60
day review. If this cannot be done in time for
> the
review then we will add this as part of the review comments.
>
>
Rich
>
>
> Rich
Schwerdtfeger
> Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility
Architect/Strategist
> Chair, IBM Accessibility
Architecture Review Board
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer
>
