[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT AND TOOLS
I don't expect anything to change much in our views about who the authoritative version is good for and what it can be counted on for. I am curious what the download statistics are for OASIS standards that have multiple formats, including PDF, regardless of the form that is identified as authoritative. Is it known? -----Original Message----- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:38 To: 'Robin Cover' Cc: 'oic@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT AND TOOLS [ ... ] However, I am concerned that although an original author will see their intentions realized when they look at documents they write in the same product version they used to author with, there are these too-prevalent situations where that intention is not conveyed to others because of interchange interoperability problems. This is even funnier in a Public Review situation, since comments about problems in appearance will not be reproducible by those using the original tool. For final form formats, we at least have a way of holding the thing steady while we wring its neck. This kind of system-level incoherence reminds me of the past problems about HTML e-mail rendering where the recipient doesn't see what the sender does but can't demonstrate it to the sender (unless power-user enough to send screen shots). [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]