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

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

PS: A feature and the specification is of no value if implementations will ignore it because they have interoperability requirements that trump such fussiness.  It would be good for us to face that and recommend ways that the situation can be mitigated.  The Interoperability aspects of ODF adoption are presumably a primary interest of this TC.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:12
To: 'Andreas J Guelzow'; 'oic@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [oic] ODF 1.1 compatibility / manifest:version in ODF 1.2

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
> 
[ ... ]