Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Deliverable: odf-diff?

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
wrote on 06/23/2008 12:04:02 PM:

> Boy am I getting confused.
> 
> 2008/6/23  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> 
> > There are really multiple levels here.  We must keep them
straight.
> >
> > First there is the feature level.  Some features are optional,
some are
> > mandatory.  Every ODF document must be valid to the ODF
schema.  This is a
> > mandatory requirement.  But support for spreadsheet formulas
is optional.
> 
> >
> > Then there is conformance at the level of a feature.  If
you implement a
> > particular feature, such as the Zip packaging model, then some
things are
> > required and some things are optional.
> 
> Please carry on Rob.
> 
> 

Please ask a specific question.  I'm sure you
see how unproductive it is to reply to the list with vague questions which
cannot be addressed and will only require me to fill the list with even
more traffic to get a clarification.

> >
> > We can work within this framework in several ways.  For
example, if we
> > define a mobile ODF profile,
> 
> 
> Ah ah! No. No such thing (yet) as a profile.
> 

Yes there is.  We've already seen the ISO definition
of profiles as well as a definition from Wikipedia.  I've also already
given links to several examples of profiles at the W3C.  You should
have enough of a mental framework to deal with the use of the word 'profile'
by now.  

If not, I'd put to the fact that there a dozens of
successful profiles in use today that were defined and standardized with
no more definition of the term than you have already seen.  Feel free
to wordsmith the given definitions in such a way that your definitional
concerns are addressed.  I'll appreciate any contributions you have
in that area.  But I'm personally not going to chase this down.

> I would really like to hear your version of conformance (assuming
we
> are in scope to talk about it) and feature conformance.
> 

It isn't "my version" -- it is the ODF standard's
definition of conformance.  The parent note sounded (to me) to be
missing the distinction between recommendations (optional requirements
of the standard) versus optional features.

A hypothetical example:

"Conforming documents may have an optional widget
section.  Conforming documents shall not have more than ten widgets
on a widget section.  For portability, conforming applications should
not have more than 5 widgets on a widget page."

So here we have an optional feature (a "widget
section").  A document is not required to have it, and an application
is not required to support it.  But if it is supported, then conformance
will require that it have no more than ten widgets per widget section.
 If there were 11, then this would be a conformance violation, reported
as an error.  Additionally, it is recommended, for portability, that
there be no more than 5 widgets on a widget section.  If this limit
is violated, it would be reported as a warning, i.e., a violation of a
formal recommendation.

> I'm really confused now.
> 

Keep on asking good questions and I'll try to answer
them. 

-Rob