Re: [office] what do mean by standard, and extensible?

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

First, "ODF" does not define
what an open standard is.  A number of us, me included, regularly
share ideas and thoughts and what this all means from a "Big Picture"
standpoint, but these are just personal opinions and don't necessarily
reflect the views of the ODF TC as a whole.  In the end ODF is exactly
what is in the specification, no more, no less.

In any case, standardization and interoperability
are two related but distinct questions.  It is possible to have a
complete specification but still lack interoperable implementations.  And
it is possible to have interoperable implementations even in the absence
of a complete specification.    

Or look at it another way -- what causes
interoperability problems?  It could be missing pieces in the specification.
 But it could also be ambiguous specification, erroneous specification,
implementation defects, partial implementations by design, etc.  When
interoperability is achieved, it comes from cycles of compliance testing
which lead to detecting and fixing defects in the specification, the implementations,
as well as the test cases.

On the other hand, as we've seen with
OpenOffice, sufficient effort on interoperability testing with MS Office,
even in the absence of a public specification of Excel's formulas, has
lead to a certain level of document interoperability.

Interoperability is a convergence of
implementation behaviors that is fed from many information sources, including
specifications, compliance testing, interoperability testing, etc.  The
more sources of information, the better.  The ideal is an open standard,
with a multi-vendor effort at compliance testing, which benefits the specification
as well as the implementations.

As to extensibility, that is the X in
XML.  No need to apologize for that.  Something to keep in mind
is that  some statements in a markup specification act to constrain
or limit what the application can express, while others statements act
to coordinate how an application records what they did choose to express.
 So, the HTML standard enumerating a fixed set of form input controls
limits compliant implementations to those controls, while the same specification
requiring  an RGB color model specifies the encoding, but doesn't
limit which colors can be expressed (at least within the color gamut of
CRT's).  

So there is some art to writing a specification
as to what degree of constraint versus coordination one wishes to enforce.
  Overconstrain and you end up with something inflexible and therefore
less relevant.  I think the Word's "art borders" in OOXML
can be held up as example of something which is overconstrained to the
detriment of the specification  (http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/07/game-of-zendo.html).
 

Of course, having a specification which
allows everything but mandates nothing won't work either.   The best
we can do is aim for the sweet spot that does what most people want and
then have extension points (coordinating statements) in the specification
so that implementations do what they must.  

-Rob

___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/

"Bruce D'Arcus" <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us>
wrote on 09/03/2006 09:14:28 AM:

> An issue we've been dealing with in the metadata group, Rick Jelliffe
 
> is dinging us a bit on some OpenFormula related wiki content:
> 
> <http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2006/09/ 
> freaked_out_by_odfs_definition.html>
> 
> For metadata, I actually thing Rick is a bit off-base that there need
 
> be such a gulf between the two -- one can standardize the model without
 
> standardizing the specific markup; standardize some of the markup/terms
 
> without worrying about standardizing all of it -- but I think it's
 
> worth clarifying the issue he raises as we move forward.
> 
> When do we standardize something, and when do we leave a structure
in  
> place that allows extension to happen without the involvement of the
 
> TC?
> 
> When, for example, should a formula extension be submitted for  
> inclusion in the spec, and when not? Is extension here just a mechanism
 
> to fill the time gap between implementation and TC standardization?
> 
> For metadata, I think the standards of inclusion would likely be  
> different, but we'd still want some statement on this.
> 
> Bruce
>