Re: [office-requirements] Requirements

[Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>]

2009/4/30  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com> wrote on 04/30/2009 04:26:45 AM:
>
>>
>> It is the last day of April and it looks like the requirements TC will
>> overrun the due date for the report of 1 May.
>>
>
> That's fine. This report was intended to be a background thread activity
> as we completed ODF 1.2.
>
>
>> Nevertheless the number of requests on the public comment list are
>> relatively few so I think I can prepare a draft of a report which I
>> will share with the SC over the next few days.  There are a number of
>> issues which emerge in calls which have been "relegated" to
>> requirements.  I have not attended all calls but I am assuming that
>> Rob's register of comments accurately captures these.  Rob is this the
>> case?
>>
>> There should also be an opportunity for TC members to make direct
>> input, but perhaps this can be after the public contributed
>> requirements have been summarized.  Or should such be integrated into
>> this document?  I think that would be the start of a longer process.
>>
>
> I can send you an extract from the spreadsheet of just the comments we
> assigned for ODF-Next consideration.

Thanks.  I may have all these but would be good to double check.

> I'm hoping TC members will also be vocal on possible themes and
> capabilities for ODF-Next.  I don't have a strong opinion on whether this
> is two steps, or whether we gather all such feedback into the same initial
> document.

I suspect it almost inevitably has to be a two stage document.  In
fact probably more than two :-)

> We should also make some statement on what degree of backwards
> compatibility we will aim for with ODF-Next.  I am already hearing from
> one country's national standards committee (which I will not name) that
> one large software publisher (whom I will not name) is arguing against the
> adoption of ODF, for among other reasons, that the ODF TC has "started
> work on ODF 2.0 which will not be backwards compatible."

Fascinating!  For the moment I'm just collecting the requirements.
Thinking recursively, I suppose the degree of back compatibility
desired is itself a requirement.  Would be good to get some
submissions on that one.

Regards
Bob

>
> -Rob
>
>> Regards
>> Bob
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>
>
>