[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8
Sorry, Dennis. "Conformable" as a term doesn't work well. I don't think that we should, in an international standard, be using subtle grammatical variations to express important distinctions in terminology, especially when introducing a novel term. There is too great a risk that it will not stand up to translation to other languages, especially when we already have "conforming", "conformance" and "conformant" as terms. But I'm certainly open to alternatives. Why not something like "Extended" conformance class? That seems clear enough. -Rob "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 02/06/2009 07:15:45 PM: > > I'm still arguing for conformable (which is suggestive of the situation, > where in a hosted thing, you're not expected to be able to ignore the new > elements and it probably have to identify the hosting in some way) at the > ceiling and (strictly) conforming at the stricter level. If strict is not > usable because it is a term of art in OASIS specification (although we are > not following the document that uses that definition), I'll give up about > that. But I bet strict conformance sticks in popular use, even though > informally. I also think you'll here people talking about OpenDocument > conformance (without the "document"). >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]