Re: [office] Concerning backwards compatibility in odf 1.2

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 29/03/07, robert_weir@us.ibm.com <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> In general I'm not too far off from what you are stating.  We don't want to
> be trapped by earlier versions of the format, and be unable to solve real
> problems by the necessity of perpetuating old mistakes.  Other companies
> with other legacy formats have that problem, and it is no end of trouble for
> them.

Yes, and I'd rather ODF developers not have that problem.


>
> But I think we also need to consider that we're giving out three ODF
> versions within a year, which is a pretty good pace.  There needs to be some
> semblance of stability, and the ability for the user to have reasonable
> expectations of forwards and backwards compatibility in such a short time
> frame.
Yes, but ODF is still settling down? I'd hope that we can be allowed a little
leaway for the first few iterations?
Is there a way we can have minor and major releases to minimise
the impact on users who need that level of stability?


One way we can help set these expectations is by adopting a clear TC
> on what type of compatibility guarantee we're making with any new version of
> the standard.  This may not be the same guarantee with every update.  Maybe
> we track that with major and minor version numbers, and we make one set of
> guarantees with minor version updates, and few or no guarantees with major
> number updates.  ODF 1.2 is feeling to be like a major version update.  I
> sometimes wonder if it should be called ODF 2.0.

I'm sure Oasis can help with that.
I know docbook has a clear policy on that. No break with compatibility between
minor (decimal) releases, can break compatibility with major releases.
The other one that helps is clear documentation saying 'this feature
will be lost'
in the next major release, I.e. clear statement of intent.

It seems to work there.

regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk