[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Floor << Ceiling Already
"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 02/03/2009 06:23:34 PM: > > Please respond to dennis.hamilton > > I think messing with the ceiling doesn't accomplish anything. Doing > something about the floor matters far more for the achievement of > interoperability and will have more bang for the buck. > > Whether it takes more work or not, I am not sure, but I think that is much > more valuable to invest in than the current effort to lower the ceiling. > > I also think that having a strict schema and strict conformance as a > normative case (separate from the ceiling) will do far more as a single step > than anything about the ceiling. > > I do not propose to do nothing. I propose to do something where it will do > the most good and be the simplest direct improvement we can make without > breaking the provisions of earlier versions that were apparently made quite > intentionally. I don't think we should revoke that provision until we have > had time to see how strict conformance and greater support for > interoperability work out. > Dennis, I'll agree with you on this. No document existing today will see its interoperability improved by this conformance change. In fact, no ODF document will see its interoperability improve by any change made in ODF 1.2. Why? Because all documents that exist today are based on ODF 1.0, ODF 1.1 or draft versions of ODF 1.2. ODF 1.2 cannot retroactively change existing documents. However, the proliferation of arbitrary proprietary extensions in ODF 1.2 documents, if and when they occur, will certainly create even greater interoperability problems. I don't see how you can fail to acknowledge that. Your counter argument seems to be "Don't bother locking the gun case because there are knives everywhere". To that I'd say, let's lock the gun case and put the knives away safely. Certainly doing one without the other does not accomplish everything, but we need to start somewhere and every bit helps. I haven't heard a plausible argument from you on what harm is caused by disallowing arbitrary extensions in conformant documents. -Rob > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00154.html > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 06:00 > To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org > Cc: Bart Hanssens; office@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Floor << Ceiling > Already > > This is irrelevant to the topic at hand, I believe. If I'm reading you > correctly (and maybe I'm missing something) you are arguing that we should > not bother fixing this area of ODF because there are other parts that are > also poorly written. But the fact that there are other areas which need > conformance work in ODF is not incompatible with concerns about ODF's > current open content model. The inability to do everything is no excuse > for doing nothing. > > [ ... ] >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]