Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] The importance to users of documents looking the same

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:15 AM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/20 Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>:
>
>> I could support Radoslavs position, yet I hear people on this list support
>> pixel|layout perfect (visual similarity) as an interop issue, e.g. with respect
>> to indexing. Perhaps there is a middle ground between wysiwyg and PDF?
>> Page breaks are certainly an issue here.
>
>
> As the one whining loudest for this, I shall continue to try to come
> up with a solid definition of whatever-it-is-perfect that makes sense
> in this context without requiring ODF to be a PDF substitute.


See my suggestions for document exchange profiles based on profiles
and discussion of the maintenance of parallel branches of profiles for
business process profiles and pixel perfect profiles. Pixel perfect is
used only as a shorthand for filling in the presently-undefined
presentation layer of ODF.

Some are concerned about only the appearance of a single document.
Others are concerned about automated document assemby from recyled
parts of documents in a variety of formats and their reformatting in a
single format. It would be a mistake to believe that the only relevant
market requirement is for pixel perfect. If you want to get ODF very
far into the enterprise market, you have to fulfill the requirements
of the data recylers in the enterprise.

Best regards,

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux)


-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>