[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-comment] ODF still fails to specify scripting properly (ODF 1.2 CD01)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote: > marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 03/01/2009 01:46:26 PM: > >> Right. It's an interoperability breakpoint. But no expansion of scope >> is required to forbid embedded scripts in "strict" ODF 1.2. >> Interoperability trumps extensibility under JTC 1 Directives and the >> Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. >> > > OK. If that is what you are getting at, then I agree. Even Microsoft > Office 2007 makes this distinction. Documents with scripts in them are > distinct from those without scripts. This is good security as well as > good for interoperability. Although the long-term solution may be to have > a well-defined runtime object model and script bindings, I have no > problems with having a conformance class that excludes scripts and macros. Hey, common ground! :-) But are we still both talking about ODF 1.2? To be clear, I'd much prefer that a common scripting language be made mandatory for conformance and the necessary specifications fleshed out. But interoperability is a threshold requirement under the Directives and the governing law. Faced with a choice between full specification of conformity requirements essential to achieve interoperability and interoperability break points introduced by under-specification of extension mechanisms, the law and the Directives are clear. Interoperability trumps extensibility. These aren't just abstract requirements isolated from the real world market requirements. A Connected World is only as good as the quality of its connections. Paper documents are no longer the sole product of office productivity software. The market conditions that excused incompatible electronic document formats no longer exist. > But I must say that this is my opinion only. This question has not been > discussed by the TC and opinions will probably be all over the board on > it. A parliamentary procedure suggestion: If a formal proposal is made to produce one core conformance class or profile in ODF 1.2 that fully complies with the JTC 1 Directives requirement of specifying "clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements essential to achieve the interoperability" and there is an up or down vote on whether to do it, the naysayers will be fairly shrieking for pressure from customers and government competition regulators. Ditto for an accompanying but separate proposal to require that all conformant producers of ODF 1.12 Lax provide read/write support for the Strict class or profile and the means for users to set Strict as the default write format. Up and down votes on the two separate proposals forces TC voters to take a precise and public position in regard to the desirability of an ODF version designed for interoperability and their intent to implement it if the proposals carry. If squarely placed in that position, I suspect there will be few willing to publicly vote anti-interop. That still leaves development of such a profile or conformance class for ODF 1.2 and accompanying opportunities to weaken the effort. But "establishing a set of 'core' elements and attributes to be supported by all implementations" has been in the Office TC Charter's scoping statement since the beginning and was supposed to happen in phase 1 development of OASIS ODF 1.0. <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/charter.php>. Some seven years after adopting that plan, it's way past time to make the ODF interoperability myth come true. I sincerely hope that this does not get put off once again. Best regards, Paul -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]