OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[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]