OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-comment message

[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]