[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [oic] ODF 1.1 compatibility / manifest:version in ODF 1.2
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 12:11 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > As I was saying ... > > How about when the specification is simply wrong? How can the specification be wrong on this issue? It says that the version attribute is required. The specification may be ill advised, but I don't see how one can argue that it is wrong. > Would you not make advisories about that? If the specification is underspecified, or contradictory, etc. I can see that an advisory is justified, but said advisory should not contradict the specification. > Or a security problem with the recommended encryption? I see no problem with an advisory regarding a recommendation or even a 'should'. But this is different from advising against following a requirement. > Would you not mitigate that, even if it meant going outside of the requirements of the spec? The problem is that some implementations fail on reading the files with this property claiming it is invalid, rather than saying that they do not support the newer format or issuing a warning to that effect. Those implementations should be fixed. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the specs regarding this issue. > > I think pragmatism is valuable in these situations. The idea is to foster interoperability, not create meaningless barriers and breakage. If the pragmatism implies not to follow existing specifications, then what is the point of those specifications in the first place? Andreas > > -----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 > > > [ ... ] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: oic-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: oic-help@lists.oasis-open.org > -- Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD FTICA Professor of Mathematical & Computing Sciences Concordia University College of Alberta
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]