Re: [office] Re: Towards a more modular ODF?

["Charles-H. Schulz" <charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com>]

Le Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:57:33 -0400,
Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> a écrit :

> Charles,
> 
> On 7/28/2011 4:17 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > Hello Rob,
> >
> 
> <snip>
> >> This is the question of having a time-boxed schedule or a
> >> feature-boxed schedule.  But we don't need to be so rigid about
> >> this either way.  For example, we can have time-boxed CSD's (every
> >> 6 months) while having the final CSD (the eventual CS) be
> >> feature-boxed.
> >
> > I know this sounds expensive but how about "testing" this modular
> > approach with the 1.3/1.4? We can always reassess this method in
> > due time and revert back to the former one if necessary. I'm in
> > favor of experimenting responsibly, so let's go ahead with a
> > modular approach.  :-)
> >
> 
> What I am missing is what "module" is ready for work or progression
> as Rob describes?

So I'd let Rob answer fully on that one; but for instance four modules
(that do not cover the full spec of course) come to my mind:
- formula
- graphics
- change tracking
- metadata

And there are others of course.

> 
> That is rather than discuss potential modules, let's have someone 
> propose work that might make a good module to proceed at a different 
> pace and see what happens.
> 
> If other parts of the standard aren't progressing as rapidly, perhaps 
> that work should move out on its own.
> 
> I suppose I am looking for something more concrete than
> modularization as an idea. May be a very good idea but so far I
> haven't seen any dragging or rapidly proceeding parts for ODF
> 1.3/ODF-Next.

You're right to look for more concrete elements, but I think the
question was first on the principle; the logical following is indeed to
determine the breakdown of modules; but I would not see this as a
difficult task.

Best,
Charles. 

> 
> Hope you are having a great day!
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Associé / Founding Partner
Ars Aperta.