Re: [office] Re: [office-metadata] Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On 7/1/07, Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org> wrote:

On Monday 02 July 2007 01:27:11 marbux wrote:
> if that second application silently
>
> > > removes those metadata attributes and the first user gets it back
> > > with that information stripped, that's bad, and should -- I believe
> > > -- be discouraged by this TC.
> >
> > I have seen nobody that has a problem with such a thing.
>
> Then let me give you a concrete example.

You misread my mail, to repeat; nobody has a problem with the TC
discouraging the data loss issue.  Or in other words (remove double
negative). Everyone agrees the issue is real and a problem we may want to
remedy, if possible.
Really, we are on the same side. Please stop fighting like we are not.

> Sun's apps destroy all foreign
> elements and attributes other than paragraphs and text spans. That
> stymied the Foundation's ability to establish non-lossy
> interoperability between MS Office and OOo. The Foundation now plans to
> use the Metadata SC's work, but Sun is in here pitching for permission
> to destroy xml:id attributes.

Well, I think your personal attachment to the foundation plugin is
coloring your judgment. Its ok to have an interrest, but you are pulling
everything that could possibly hurt your vested interrests into the far
negative.  

That's the second time in 24 hours I've been told I have a vested interest in the Foundation's plug-in. For the record, I have no financial interest in any software or software project whatsoever. My only source of revenue is a vested retirement stipend. I am financially beholden to no person or entity on this planet.

It really makes your opinions hard to take seriously. After
all, this is not a political party, this is a technical committee.

You have a very naive view of what goes on in this TC. It is political in the extreme.
 

> > I certainly agree
> > silently losing data is bad and should be discouraged.
>
> Why just discouraged? Why not prohibited?

Have you read any of my mails on this thread?  I've gone over that again
and again...
In short; doing so will seriously hurt ODF adoption in new and unheard of
applications.

How specifically? I've heard nothing but platitudes from you on this, not a single use case.
 

> > The question is what can the TC can do that will not harm real use
> > cases
> > and which actually will have the effect we are after.
>
> So offer us some use cases and tell us the effect you want.

Same here, there have been enough on this thread.

But none from you. I've offered the real-life use case of Sun's apps breaking high-fidelity interoperability with Microsoft Office by destroying foreign elements and attributes. How do your "market forces" cure that problem? My "market force" would be a conformance requirement that gives Sun the choice between fixing the problem or being ineligible for government software procurement tenders because of non-conformance with the standard.