Re: [office-comment] Foreign elements and attributes

[Jesper Lund Stocholm <4a4553504552@gmail.com>]

Hi Bob,

2009/2/26 Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>:
> Hi Jesper,
>
> I agree with your assessment of the possible consequences of some of
> these decisions.  Personally I don't like to think of ODF core as
> being a "stripped" version - though I have seen calls from some
> quarters for such a beast.  ODF core should certainly be as
> feature-complete as possible.

Ok - I am glad to hear it. My concerns about the usage of the word
"Core" is that it automatically raises the question: "What is not in
the core?". If the anwser to this question is simply "Extensions", I
don't see a particular problem with this.

> I do remember the process which brought about the conformance classes
> of OOXML - which addressed how to deal with a growing appendix of
> deprecated features.  I think extended in this context is designed
> more to address extensibility than deprecation.  Of course there is
> some overlap.

Yes, I was not trying to say that the conformance-classes in IS29500
are the same (or designed) as the ones proposed in ODF 1.2. I was
trying to make the point that they bring the same intrinsic problem to
the table: "how will applications deal with them?" and "Will end users
have a predictable way of interpreting the conformance claims?"

-- 
Jesper Lund Stocholm
www.idippedut.dk
SC34/WG4 http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/