[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: cd02 -- Conforming OpenDocument Producers
"(G1.2) It may produce conforming OpenDocument extended documents, but it shall have a mode of operation where all OpenDocument documents that are created are conforming OpenDocument documents." As drafted, this provision leaves implementers free to flash warnings at users that data may be lost when writing to "Conforming" OpenDocument and not bother to implement a compatibility mode that blocks the availability of "extended" features whose elements and attributes are not written to file. E.g., both Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org implement ODF 1.1 in this way. Such warnings can only frighten users away from writing to Conforming OpenDocument, lead to results unintended by the user, and undermine the uptake of Conforming OpenDocument documents. This is a bug in the specification at the human < > machine interoperability interface. A better approach would be to define Conforming OpenDocument documents as a subset profile of the extended OpenDocument superset, then adapt language used by the W3C: "A conformant user agent of a superset profile specification must process subset profile content *as if it were* the superset profile content." <http://www.w3.org/TR/CDR/#conformance>. So something like, "A Conforming OpenDocument Extended Producer *shall* process Conforming OpenDocument profile content as if it were the superset profile content." Nb., by making this suggestion, I am just trying to make the best of a bad situation. In no way, shape, or form do I believe it lawful to bestow conformant status on documents that include markup not fully specified by the ODF standard itself as the Conforming OpenDocument Extended conformance class does. JTC 1 Directives Annex I (international standards must "specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements essential to achieve the interoperability"). Also, WTDS 135 EC - Asbestos, (World Trade Organization Appellate Body; 12 March 2001; HTML version), para. 66-70, <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds135_e.htm> (a technical regulation [or international standard] must specify [i] "any objectively definable 'features', 'qualities', 'attributes', or other 'distinguishing mark'" [ii] of an identifiable product or group of products [iii] only in mandatory "must" or "must not" terms); reaffirmed, WTDS 231 EC - Sardines, pp. 41-51 (World Trade Organization Appellate Body; 26 September 2002), pp. 41-51, <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds231_e.htm> The governing authorities do not contemplate that vendor-specific extensions to an international standard be classified as conforming. The specification of product characteristics must be in the standard itself. Best regards, Paul E. Merrell, J.D. -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]