[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Public Comment #217 - Authoritative Version of Specification
Sorry, but I can't resist. If the authoritative version of the spec is to be an XML format, then that would be content.xml. I don't expect that most people reading the spec would even *know* that there was an error in the display unless they were comparing two different versions, and would then have difficulty trying to parse out the XML itself. They would still be left with the question - which one is right? Particularly if one implementation happened to drop some XML, they wouldn't even know it was missing. I agree that PDF can introduce errors, and am usually a proponent of the editable source as the authoritative format for the reasons Robin already stated.. I am beginning to think, however, that any TC using some flavor of OpenDocument should have to declare the particular tool, as I too see differences in content depending on if I look at the file in OO or Symphony. I don't have other OpenDocument tools uploaded to test, but I'm guessing some things would render differently depending on the tool's capabilities and conformance level. The reality is that whatever output format is deemed by the TC to be authoritative, the TC must carefully review that output to ensure that it is accurate in all respects. Regards, Mary On Mar 30, 2009, at 5:10 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 03/30/2009 > 12:23:57 PM: > >> >> RE: [office] Public Comment #217 - Authoritative Version of > Specification >> >> I think, as a practical matter, the defects that occur when one >> uses an > ODF >> implementation that is not the one used for the authoring are far >> more >> disturbing than the blemishes you remark about concerning >> disparities in >> PDFs derived from the as-authored ODF documents. There is a problem > with >> the current state of interoperability for ODF consumers in comparison > with >> the ubiquity and stability of PDF at this point. >> > > The issue of course is not whether PDF is rendered more consistently > than > ODF is. The question is whether the PDF that is initially generated > is > accurate. For example, during the OOXML review in ISO we found many > examples, usually involving mathematical equations, where the > generated > PDF varied significantly from the Word original. These introduced > real > technical errors into the draft, in some cases changing the meaning of > spreadsheet formulas. A good amount of JTC1 NB time was chewed up > correcting such problems. This problem would not have happened with > an > ODF or OOXML original, regardless of the rendering engine, since once > could always look at the XML source to resolve the intent. > > -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 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]