[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: RE: [office] Our Position on the Conformance Proposal
Hi Stephen One extensibility clause that includes a conformance mechanism :-) That's what I really want to avoid. I believe there is a balance to be struck between predictability and space for implementors to innovate. Perhaps ironically, having a tightly constrained document format can provide the best common basis to innovate and be creative yet still play in tune with the other band members. There's no great history to draw on in terms of standardized, interoperable office document formats. Lots of not so good history. So whereas I can accept that you do really believe that extensions are a critical part of a document standard, I think the jury is still out over whether the benefits outweigh the cost. You say that "extensions are a critical part of the standard", but I rather think of them as extensions of the standard. Which is not necessarily bad (he says guardedly). And if they use a well defined extension mechanism then so much the better. That to my mind is the purpose of the extended conformance class. It also seems clear that continued work on such a mechanism, including porting some ideas from OOXML, might be valuable but not this late in the cycle of v1.2. But the call for requirements is now open. Regards Bob 2009/2/26 Stephen Peront <stepper@microsoft.com>: > Hi Jomar... > > Doug is stuck in meetings, so I will respond. Doug can follow-up if necessary when he is free again. > >> On the beginning of this discussion, when "no extensions" was on the >> table you give a lot of reasons that convinced me to accept the idea >> of two conformance (I was supporting a single "not extended" class). > > Yes, and we do believe that extensions are a critical part of a document standard. We have done our best to be consistent in saying that we believe that there should be one conformance clause that includes an extensibility mechanism. > > Best Regards, > -Stephen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jomar Silva [mailto:jomar.silva@br.odfalliance.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:42 PM > To: Doug Mahugh; office@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Res: RE: [office] Our Position on the Conformance Proposal > > Doug, > >>How does it increase choice? People >>already have the ability to choose >>between extensions or not. > > It's not true (at least in Brazil). > > Today, people choose applications and applications developers choose extensions or not. > > Some people choose applications based on their extensions usage or not, and with two conformance classes, applications choices will be transparent to users and maybe we'll reach a day when people will have the ability to choose between extensions or not. > > I would like to register that it is very strange to me to see that kind of divergence from you guys. > > On the beginning of this discussion, when "no extensions" was on the table you give a lot of reasons that convinced me to accept the idea of two conformance (I was supporting a single "not extended" class). > > Now that you've managed to get the extensions support, you are asking us to forget about "not extended" documents conformance... Is that game ? > > Best, > > Jomar > > PS.: If you said that you'll not use extensions, I really don' t understand why are you guys so worried about the proposal on the table (that allows both kinds of documents ???). > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com> > > Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:13:36 > To: office@lists.oasis-open.org<office@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject: RE: [office] Our Position on the Conformance Proposal > >> Having two conformance classes increases choice. It doesn't reduce it. > > How does it increase choice? People already have the ability to choose between extensions or not. This change simply adds labels to those choices, and those labels imply that there is a qualitative distinction. > > I think these labels will be confusing to many people, and will lead to a general sense that the "one true ODF conformance" is the one that doesn't allow for extensions. And I suspect there will be people actively promoting such an interpretation. If that's what you're referring to when you imply there is "value" in this distinction, then we'll have to agree to disagree on whether that's valuable. As Stephen said, this distinction does nothing to address most of the actual interoperability challenges that users face today. > > 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. > > Regards, > Doug > > > -----Original Message----- > From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 9:58 AM > To: office@lists.oasis-open.org > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]