RE: [office-comment] 8.5.4 of ODF 1.0

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I don't want to fan the flames here, so this message may prove unwise.

I do want to point out an important rhetorical gaff.

When someone gives their personal opinion about something (as MURATA did), I
don't think it is appropriate to drag in appeals to authorities.  It's not
like you can argue with someone about what their personal opinion is. I
could argue with the veracity of the particular quoted statements and the
non sequitur based on them, but I think that would be seriously off-topic.

I believe the more important point in MURATA's comment has to do with the
importance of precision and that when an ambiguity in understanding of the
specification is demonstrated, it is important to do something about it.  I
support that comment and concede MURATA's experience in the matter.

 - Dennis

PS: To be clear, I have no opinion whatsoever on the comparison that MURATA
made, and I certainly can claim no perspective on the relative
translatability of the two specifications to another language.  I would have
simply passed over that comparison but for it having attracted lightning
here.

-----Original Message-----
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200807/msg00063.html
From: Sheldon Britton [mailto:sab_orion@verizon.net] 
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 08:22
To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
Cc: ODF Comments List
Subject: Re: [office-comment] 8.5.4 of ODF 1.0

MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200807/msg00060.html
> Patrick,
[ ... ]
> Your concern about inconsistencies and time delay are reasonable. 
> However, when different implementors have different (and somewhat
> reasonable) interpretations of the standard, the standard is likely to
> fail. The editors have to consider this difficult balance and make their
> own decisions.
>
[ ... ]
>
> As an editor, I tend to write dense specifications.  However, when I
> read specifications, I do like comprehensive specifications with ample
> examples.  I certainly think that OOXML is more readable than ODF and
> that translation of OOXML will be easier than that of ODF.
[ ... ]
Therefore, according to the above quote it will appear that some may be 
in disagreement with you in saying that "OOXML is more readable than ODF 
and that translation of OOXML will be easier than that of ODF".
[ ... ]