Re: [office-collab] Straw Poll re delay to consensus report to include MCT

[Svante Schubert <svante.schubert@gmail.com>]

Dennis,

as Andreas already stated a third proposal will not help the SC. We can
not continue the way we did before. It does not scale to wade through
details and ignore the high level designs and coverage of requirement
fulfillments.
I agree with you, I have presented less details to test against, but
everyone in the SC should be able to understand the idea and connect the
dots as I did exemplary provide detailed information.
If you believe there is something unclear or missing to understand the
concept or principles, please let me know.

Thanks for your feed-back, Dennis!
Svante

On 04.02.2012 00:30, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Svante, until you have more technical details in a proposal that can be appraised and tested against, there are no questions to ask.  
>
> With regard to migration, I agree, there has to be a way to upgrade but, even better, to interoperate.  (Not blow out in a down-level implementation, in particular.)
>
> It is not enough for you to see no problems.  It has to be presented in a persistent form that is concrete enough to match against an implementation and where others can test the ideas, raise questions, identify and assess edge cases, etc.  (This applies to all of the proposals, but gct and ect are ahead at the moment.)  
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Svante Schubert
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:32
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [office-collab] Straw Poll re delay to consensus report to include MCT
>
> On 03.02.2012 21:21, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> Svante, this is too much like a drive-by shooting.  
> Dennis, in relation to the current progress it is for sure.
>> I suggest that time is better spent solidifying technical content for proposals.
> I agree and stated before I would love to discuss technical questions
> ASAP on a call. But until now there was not a single technical question
> on the list.
>> And everyone needs to decide the full issue about how implementations are expected to migrate.  Will 1.3 eliminate the CT, such as it is, in ODF 1.0/1.1/1.2 or will it build repairs on it as well as it can and leave dramatic changes for ODF 2.0?  How do implementations that confirm workability of revisions to CT in 1.3 Committee Drafts work in?  These are serious pragmatic issues.
> A proposal adapting an existing ODF feature should always provide a
> mapping from & to the last ODF version to guarantee interoperability to
> existing ODF documents. If we stick to this rule, we might have a full
> chain of transformations from ODF 1.2 to ODF XY.
>> That's a policy question that needs to be dealt with and that one would then reconcile proposals within.
> I do not see an unsolvable problem here.
>
> - Svante
>>  - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Svante Schubert
>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:08
>> To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: Re: [office-collab] Straw Poll re delay to consensus report to include MCT
>>
>> With all due respect if this SC would be part of a profit (or at least result) oriented company, I fear we all have been fired a while ago.
>>
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: office-collab-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: office-collab-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>