Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Implementation vs. result (CDRF, profiles, et al.)

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/6/18 Simon Calderson <caldersons@yahoo.co.uk>:

> I think we need to focus on what this new TC is seeking to achieve, not how it will decide to achieve things. In particular, specifying in too much detail what its outputs should be, or what format it outputs should be in, is extremely dangerous. What we want/need/desire is great interoperability between ODF implementations (for some definition of such).

From my reading so far, the only viable route is via compliance testing.
I haven't seen any other definition of interop that is viable and
based on the standard.



> Tying things down too tightly could mean the TC is constrained into not pursuing other avenues which achieve that goal.

+ 1 .See the latest thread and http://sites.google.com/a/odfiic.org/tc/glossary




>
> As an example, this talk of CDRF I find very confused - it has virtually nothing to do with interop or conformance. CDRF specifies how you can mix different format documents in a single document, e.g. HTML and SVG.

By namespacing. Yep. Not a lot of help when mixed ns apps have been around
for so long. We now have the tools to play with them too.



>
> Also, I worry about trying to find too precise a definition of "profile",

At least two of us are with you there.

Broad definition and some examples does it best for me.


regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk