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: 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]