[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Our Position on the Conformance Proposal
Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com> wrote on 02/26/2009 12:34:40 PM: > > Rob, your core point seems to be that allowing two conformance > classes is a gracious accommodation of documents that use the > extension points already defined in ODF. And our position is that > putting such documents in a separate category is not in the best > interest of implementers or document users. You are trying to make > the conformance clause distinguish between two concepts that we see > as one and the same: standards-conformant documents that include > custom semantics from non-standardized namespaces. I have many such > DOCX documents on my laptop computer right now, and they are not > divided into "truly conformant" and "extended." I think it would be > great for ODF to be equally accommodating of this sort of > combination of standardization and innovation. > So the question is: Is your inability to see value in the distinction between the two conformance classes sufficient reason to deny others the benefit of having and making use of those distinctions that they have expressed a need for? I don't question the fact that you, evidently, don't think that this distinction is valuable. Fine. No one is forcing you to implement that conformance class. But is that a good reason to deny others the ability to express conformance distinctions that they value? It is really a coexistence question. What is the fundamental problem with having two conformance classes? How does the existence of extended and non-extended conformance classes prevent you or anyone else from implementing or using either conformance class? Having two conformance classes increases choice. It doesn't reduce it. Why are you recommending that we reduce choice? -Rob
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]