Re: [office-comment] Foreign elements and attributes

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

Rob

2009/3/1  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:

> Let's have an extended conformance class and
> an unextended conformance class.  Let the market decide which one they
> prefer for any particular use.  Do you have problems with that?

As I pointed out earlier, I am getting more and more fond of the idea
of two distinct conformance classes. I have read Doug's piece again,
and I now really don't see the problem. I agree with Microsoft and
others that not allowing extensions in ODF is bad - but with a
conformance class explicitly allowing this I don't see the problem.

Microsoft, could you elaborate a bit on why the extended conformance
class is not acceptable to you?

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