Checklist for ODF 1.4

[svanteschubert]

Postponed to ODF 1.4:

• 1 - Part 1,3,4: Removing accidental bookmarks not defined as allowed cross-references
• 2 - Part 1-4: Replacing non-mnemonic TOC references with generated ones based on XML node names"
• 3 - Part 2: Check for ISO Keywords styling: “should”, “should not”, “may” and “need not” - replace "must"
• 4 - Part 1,3,4: Check for ISO Keywords styling: 'shall', 'shall not', 'should', 'should not', 'may' and 'need not' - replace 'must'
• 5 - Part 1-4: Adding 'Normative'/'Informative' parent template styles beyond "Normal" specification root style
• 6 - Part 3: Default Value XSLT enhancement for conditional default values
• 7 - all Part: Exchange release ID, e.g. from "community specification draft 03" to "community specification 02", the "CSD03" was exchanged to "CS02" and the previous version "CS01" was exchanged to "CSD03". But there is also the Title (above the links) and a mentioning at the bottom of page 1 of the current version, e.g. "Draft 03", which manually has to be adopted! Sometimes there is metadata in content.xml user-defined attributes, which should be normalized and updates should be automated.
• 8 - Part 3 shows a HTML XSL problem with a dot after "as-character" anchored image, see details Part3: Exchanging 4x draw:circle with SVG images generating new HTML #33

[franciscave]

In ODF 1.3 CS02 Part Schema, section 19.381 is blank in the .odt and .pdf versions and is missing entirely in the .html version.

I believe that this was the result of deleting the attribute 'office:process-content'. Should the blank heading remain, or should it be removed and leave a gap in the numbering? I suspect that neither of these is ideal.

[franciscave]

Need to check for data types and values that are in the wrong font. Most were corrected in ODF 1.3, but some have slipped through, e.g.: Part Schema, 20.6 chart:axis-position, third bullet: 'double' should be 'double'; Part Schema, 20.50 chart:regression-type, sixth bullet: 'polynomial' should be 'polynomial'.

[franciscave]

Similarly, we need to check for cross-references that are in the wrong font. This occasionally happens when the cross-reference follows an element or attribute name, and the cross-reference has the character style applied and should not have.

I have counted 1 occurrence of an attribute name followed by a cross-reference number styled 'Attribute' and 82 occurrences of an element name followed by a cross-reference styled 'Element'.

[franciscave]

In Part OpenFormula section 2.1 the first sentence begins "The OpenDocument specification...". I think this should be "This OpenDocument specification..." or just "This specification...". The current wording is potentially confusing.

In Part OpenFormula, section 2.2 there is an incorrect reference to chapter 4. The reference should be to chapter 5, which is where the expression syntax is defined.

[franciscave]

In checking for attribute values containing spaces in Part 3 Schema, I used LO to search for uses of the character style 'Attribute Value' with text containing a space. I did this by modifying the properties of the attribute to include yellow highlighting, then did a search for a space with yellow highlighting applied to it.

This highlights several instances where the character style 'Attribute Value' appears to have been applied incorrectly: 10.7, 19.36, 19.626, 20.47 and 20.330.

Some attribute values have been styled 'Attribute Value Instance' (only one of these two styles is needed, I believe). There is one instance where the use of this style is clearly incorrect: 19.270.

[franciscave]

In Part 4 OpenFormula, which of the following are correct?

• OpenDocument Formula Expression (heading to 2.2)
• OpenDocument formula expression (2.2 and 2.3.1, but compare with OpenDocument Formula Evaluator, which consistently uses title case)
• OpenFormula expression (5.6).

[franciscave]

We need to check that all Notes (except possibly in tables?) use the paragraph style 'Note'.

[franciscave]

In ODF 1.3 CS02 Part Schema, section 19.381 is blank in the .odt and .pdf versions and is missing entirely in the .html version.

I believe that this was the result of deleting the attribute 'office:process-content'. Should the blank heading remain, or should it be removed and leave a gap in the numbering? I suspect that neither of these is ideal.

The blank heading (i.e. section number only) should remain, so that the following sections are not re-numbered. It may be worth adding '[deleted in ODF 1.2]' or similar in place of heading text.

[franciscave]

The following editorial issue remains to be resolved:

In Part OpenFormula section 2.1 the first sentence begins "The OpenDocument specification...". I think this should be "This OpenDocument specification..." or just "This specification...". The current wording is potentially confusing.

The following editorial issue has been resolved in the Part 4 master document draft.

In Part OpenFormula, section 2.2 there is an incorrect reference to chapter 4. The reference should be to chapter 5, which is where the expression syntax is defined.

[franciscave]

The heading 'Deprecated MIME Types' needs to be deleted from Part 3, Appendix G, as no MIME Types have changed to being deprecated in ODF 1.4.

[franciscave]

The heading 'Deprecated MIME Types' needs to be deleted from Part 3, Appendix G, as no MIME Types have changed to being deprecated in ODF 1.4.

Now deleted in the master version of Part 3, Appendix G.