[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8
Michael I like the solution you have proposed and will happily support it. It seems I am doomed to disagree with Dennis, but mostly I do like the names. The various forms of "wobbly"-conformance suffer from the same weakness as implying, at least to the lay person, some sort of sub-standard conformance. Here there is no ambiguity. Just conformance. I think that is at it should be. I do agree with Dennis that "dialect" and "variant" might have some potential, but thus far I'm in favour of the way you have it. Dialectic conformance - a synthesis of contradictions - takes us down a long-trodden path :-) Regards Bob 2009/2/5 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>: > Michael, > > I will examine the revision with great interest. Thanks for your struggling > with this. > > 1. I favor the two-tiered approach, as you know. > > 2. I am assuming that the only schema will now be what has been called the > strict schema in the past. That is an useful simplification. > > 3. I don't like the names very much, but that may be just me. > > 3.1 For one thing, I have become fond of "strict conformance" and > "strictly-conformant." I find that a powerful designation and I think it > aligns with the strong goals of those communities that establish > requirements for use of strictly-conformant ODF Documents in interchange and > for public and civil purposes. It seems useful in branding, badging, and > for other purposes where documents are expected to be squeeky clean. > > 3.2 For the other, the term is simply too geeky and I don't think it helps > maintain a common understanding of what it is about. I guess it means that > ODF is the host language for a customized version with limited extensions > (foreign elements being a circumscribed way of doing it, especially if the > underlying strictly-conformant ODF document is meant to be useful). Is that > the sense you give it? > > 4. I am not objecting to qualifying the term if it is as easy to convey as > strict conformance is and we are clear about the correspondence with > "conformant" in previous specifications. [In thinking out loud, below, I > came up with "conformable" for the document, in contrast with the > strictly-conformant document, but producers would still be conforming and > strictly conforming, I think.] > > 5. Maybe we can kick this around for a few days in search of a better term. > If strict conformance is as appealing to others as I find it, maybe we just > use plain conformance in the sense it has for ODF 1.1 for now, with leaving > the search for a better term open. > > - Dennis > > - - - - - - - - - - - > > More thinking out loud - > > Terms I rejected when thinking about this: > > - loose conformance (has the right tone, but can apply as easily to a > strictly-conforming consumer and producer) > - weak conformance (same problem as above) > - limited conformance (ditto) > - modified conformance (again) > - altered conformance (?) > - custom conformance (sounds too much like a feature) > - extended conformance (likewise) > > If the words conformant and conformance are not used, or not used alone, so > there is no contraction that creates confusion with (strict) conformance and > (strictly) conformant, that might be more promising. > > - dialect > - variant > > [I am tempted to list "deviant," but we should save discussion about > deviations to apply to all deviations around fully-implemented > strictly-conformant documents consumed and produced by a processor.] > > If there was a term that reflected how a strictly-conformant document is > obtained by reducing out the foreign matter, that would help too. I thought > of "reduced conformance" but that is off base, even though it might be the > right kind of tone. > > Oh, how about "conformable?" > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 05:24 > To: OpenDocument Mailing List > Subject: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8 > > Dear TC members, > > when I look over the discussions regarding the conformance clauses, it > seems to me that there is actually a very large area of consensus, and > that there are only a few, but essential items where the opinions > differ. These are: > > - Should there be a loose conformance level for documents that allows > foreign elements everywhere? > - Can we remove that level, that we had in ODF 1.1, without prior notice? > - Should/Can we demand that a conforming producer must be able to create > (strictly) conforming documents? > > In addition to this, there seems to be a strong demand for a conformance > level which does not allow foreign elements, and also for having a very > limited number of conformance level. My impression is that we agree all > agree on this. > > The requirements are to some degree conflicting, but I anyway tried to > find a solution that may be acceptable to all of you. The key points of > it are: > > - There will be two conformance levels for documents. One does not > support foreign elements and is called "OpenDocument document > conformance". The other one does support foreign elements without > restrictions and is called "OpenDocument Host Language Conformance". > - There will be two conformance modes for producers. A conforming > OpenDocument document producer must be able to produce conforming > OpenDocument documents. A conforming OpenDocument Host Language Producer > must be able to produce OpenDocument Host Language Documents, but there > is no requirement that it must be able to produce conforming > OpenDocument documents. > > This proposals meets the requirement to have a strict OpenDocument > conformance, but it also provides a conformance mode for application > that wish to extend OpenDocument. This means that we have two > conformance levels rather than one, but the new name of what I called > "loose" conformance in prior proposals better reflects the > characteristics of this mode. And it lowers the risk of confusion. The > proposal also provides a conformance mode for ODF 1.1 documents that > contain foreign elements and shall be adapted to ODF 1.2. > > The new name "OpenDocument host language conformance" is actually a name > I have adopted from the XHTML 1.1 specification, which provides a "XHTML > host language document" conformance level. It describes XHTML documents > that make use of extensions modules. In so far, we would be very close > to XHTML in this regard. > > The update proposal can be found here: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31052/conformance-definiti > on-proposal-v8.odt > > The version I'm referring to is the first one in the document. > > I have made a few non substantial corrections and clarifications, most > of them have been suggested by Rob (Rob, thanks for having a close look > at the proposal). A list of these changes can be found in the proposal > itself. > > I would be glad if this proposal is acceptable for all of you and would > like to discuss and maybe vote on it on Monday. > > Best regards > > Michael > > > > -- > Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering > StarOffice/OpenOffice.org > Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55 > D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com > http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500 > http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, > D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > -- > This message has been scanned by DST MailScanner > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]