[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Our Position on the Conformance Proposal
Hi Michael... > So, if I look at this situation from the position of a chair who wants > to find a solution for the issue that is okay for everyone, if that's > possible, then I still think that the current proposal (that allows two > conformance clauses) is a good compromise between the different > positions. It does not reflect your position by 100%, nor does it > let's say Rob's or mine or that of any other TC member. But that is the > nature of a compromise. I would be glad if you could support this > compromise anyway. Yes, I understand, appreciate and respect your responsibility, as chair, to lead the TC through issues like this to the highest level of consensus possible. Thanks, -Stephen -----Original Message----- From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 5:45 AM To: Stephen Peront Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office] Our Position on the Conformance Proposal Stephen, first of all, thank you very much for sharing your position with the TC. If I look at the discussions we had over the last months, and those we have since yesterday on the mailing list, then it seems to me that we have TC members that are in favor of a single conformance level that does allow foreign elements, and we have TC members that are in favor of having a single conformance level that does not allow them. So, if I look at this situation from the position of a chair who wants to find a solution for the issue that is okay for everyone, if that's possible, then I still think that the current proposal (that allows two conformance clauses) is a good compromise between the different positions. It does not reflect your position by 100%, nor does it let's say Rob's or mine or that of any other TC member. But that is the nature of a compromise. I would be glad if you could support this compromise anyway. A few more remarks on the topic, including some perspective for the future: 1. The distinction between different levels of conformance is not really new in ODF 1.2. Even the ODF 1.0 specification contains a so called strict schema, which is normative, and which does not allow any foreign elements and attributes. This schema was not connected to a particular conformance level or class, but the purpose of this schema is to provide a tool or measure that allows to ensure that a ODF document does not contain any foreign elements. I'm sure this schema is used in practice, not only be the validation tools that I have developed myself, but also by others. 2. We see a demand from adopters for having an "extension-free" conformance definition, and I am sure that regardless what this TC decides on the matter, we will see one. If it is not us that creates this definition, then it may be the OIC TC. Or it may be just tools that check the absence of foreign elements. However, since we had this discussion already in this TC and since we are working on the conformance clauses, and because the result of the discussions won't be different if we start them again somewhere else, I think we should also complete the discussion in this TC. 3. I agree that it currently takes some time from a proposal until we see it an an approved specification. For this reason, I have already proposed that we introduce some kind of train model were we deliver specification every 6 month or so, and where we take what is ready by that dates. We are currently concentrating on completing ODF 1.2, but as soon as it is ready, I'm happy to discuss not only what should go onto the next version (this has already been started actually with the work the ODF Requirements SC is doing), but also what a schedule for future ODF versions could be. 4. ODF 1.2 has two mechanisms that allow the inclusion of semantic information into ODF documents. That's on the one hand the XForms support, and on the other hand the RDF/XML and RDFa support we have added for ODF 1.2. The later is the result of a careful analysis and specification work by the ODF Metadata SC. An analysis whether the existing features cover all use cases you have in mind, and if not, whether the existing features can be enhanced or whether we need additional mechanisms, appears to be a reasonable action. But that is also something that needs some time and some use cases. It seems to be a little bit too late to me to start that now where we have completed ODF 1.2 and in particular also the meta data work for ODF 1.2. But if we follow the "train model" approach for future specification that I have suggested above, it anyway may be something where we could see results very soon. 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]