Re: [office] Re: [office-metadata] Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal

[Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org>]

On Saturday 30 June 2007 13:00:07 Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> > So the question becomes, is metadata any different. I'm inclined to
> > say no.  Its not different, its just a feature that the application
> > should support. If it doesn't then a better application comes along
> > and replaces it.
>
> Absolutely agreed. This is not in any way specific to metadata. So
> let's make sure to keep these issues separate.

Hmm? How do you come from agreeing two things are the same and then 
suggesting they should be treated separately?
That just doesn't make sense to me.
Two issues being the same should be handled the same, don't they?

> > Looking at the ODF landscape I consider this;
> > * OOo and KOffice both think its a good feature to support, and are
> > both moving to do so.  I'm sure other big office suites agree and do
> > so as well.  Meaning that ODF doesn't have to force their hands.
> > * Almost all professional users of office suites benefit from
> > metadata in one way or another. So an application that follows user
> > requests will quickly see metadata on their TODO list.
> > * There are not that many application-types that both load and save
> > ODF files. Viewers and writers are the bigger segment. We are only
> > concerned with the load+save type.
> >
> > Bottom line is that while I fully agree its very important to retain
> > this information that does not automatically imply that ODF has to
> > make it mandatory. Market forces can do that too.
> > Furthermore I would find it hypocritical to make it mandatory while
> > almost all features in ODF are not mandatory to be retained between
> > load and saves.
>
> As I said: I'm not in any way saying it should be mandatory ODF 1.2
> applications support metadata. That's a red herring, so can we please
> put that aside?
>
> I'm saying it should be mandatory that applications don't destroy
> crucial data!

So was I. That's what "retain this information" means in my comment you 
quoted.

> The crucial bit here is: what is it OK for an application to do with
> optional (or foreign) attributes? The new xml:id attribute we rely on
> for metadata is just one example of this, but I'm sure there are
> others. Is it OK for an application to read that data in but throw it
> out?
>
> Or files it doesn't know about: is it OK for an ODF application to dump
> them?

That is not your and not my decision to make.
We can just make very clear what the consequences are. And they are very 
obviously going to loose data and functionality. Just like not supporting 
a 'feature' like text:p looses data.

Your questions are valid, just not posted in the right context.
The questions are valid as they surely will be relevant to the end users. 
Which will loose functionality if data is lost.  Your idea to ask this in 
the ODF technical committee(s) is the wrong context. It is almost never a 
good idea to make sections mandatory in a specification. If only because 
as soon as you do the applications not implementing the mandatory part 
will still call it ODF, and you get to do police work with all the 
negative market consequences that come with that.

So, to answer your question; an application losing data is not one that 
people will like a lot.

I have to ask you;  how do you think history will unfold if you make this 
part mandatory?
If you think that suddenly everyone will do it right then you are in for a 
surprise. The world doesn't work like that.
I can point to issues where OOo is not ODF compliant, and just not 
altering their behavior since it makes sense for them. How does that 
change when you mark something mandatory?

Note the reason I mentioned the testsuite; 
http://testsuite.opendocumentfellowship.org  the reason is that this is 
an excellent tool to tell the world how good or how bad an implementation 
is. We already talked about having an extra metric that specifies how 
well data is retained between load and save.  Its unfortunately not done 
due to lack of manpower.
A second question for you; do you have doubts that the market can make 
sure ODF compliance becomes a consideration for people choosing their 
tools?
-- 
Thomas Zander

PGP signature