RE: [oic] ODF 1.1 compatibility / manifest:version in ODF 1.2

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

As I was saying ...

How about when the specification is simply wrong?  Would you not make advisories about that?  Or a security problem with the recommended encryption?  Would you not mitigate that, even if it meant going outside of the requirements of the spec?

I think pragmatism is valuable in these situations.  The idea is to foster interoperability, not create meaningless barriers and breakage.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: oic@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:oic@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Andreas J Guelzow
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:06
To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [oic] ODF 1.1 compatibility / manifest:version in ODF 1.2

On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 10:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I would recommend something that the OIC can do within its sphere, and that won't happen very quickly, if at all, at the ODF TC:
> 
>  Recommend that ODF 1.2 consumers accept the package whether or not the attribute is set.
> 
>  Recommend that producers only produce that attribute if there is
> something *about*the*manifest* that requires ODF 1.2 package
> provisions.  That is, if additional provisions that are not in ODF 1.1
> and earlier packages are relied upon, such as additional encryption
> methods, etc.

I do not think it is appropriate for the OIC to recommend the creation
invalid ODF files.

Andreas
 
> 
>  I helped write that requirement and it was a mistake.  My bad.  Unfortunately, there are folks who think it is a good idea.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
[ ... ]