RE: [office] Our Position on the Conformance Proposal

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com> wrote on 02/26/2009 01:13:36 PM:

> By the way, we're not "denying others" anything at all.  We were 
> asked for our position, and we've expressed it.  That's all that's 
> going on here.
> 

OK, Doug, that's fine.   I certainly understand your position better now. 
Thanks. 

But if you want to take it further in a more concrete way, for example 
with the extension framework stuff from OOXML, then you'll need to put 
together a more detailed proposal for the TC to consider.  For example, 
we'll need to know whether it would be just referenced as an external 
reference, or whether it would need to be adopted or profiled for use in 
ODF.  Do we take all of its functionality, or just some of it?  Also, I 
think we would need a RELAX NG schema definition for it.

-Rob