Re: [office] Preservation question

[Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org>]

On Tuesday 03 July 2007 05:19:31 marbux wrote:
> I think it clarifies that you believe there is no way to *require*
> application interoperability in the ODF specification without
> specifying how ODF processors must work, that you oppose specifying how
> ODF processors must work for interoperability purposes, and that you
> oppose the standard including any mandatory tools designed for *any*
> conversion strategy. Is that a fair summing up of your position?
>
>
> Here is the market requirement, Patrick:
>
> "For all parties involved, the exchange of
>  documents and data between authorities,
>  businesses and citizens must be possible without
>  technical barriers."

Marbux;

As has been said yesterday, this TC is about document formats and not a 
standard on how ODF processors should do their job.

I suggest you (and the foundation) start an effort that creates 
a "Approved interoperable" certificate with a set of technical goals that 
application should reach.
This way any app can be ODF aware (or even certified) but only the 
foundations certificate will mean that governments should actually use 
that software.

This way we don't scare off the huge amount of ODF apps by setting 
requirements they have no interrest in having. And at the same time the 
office suites that are interrested in a certain market segment can expand 
to reach that goal.

Cheers
-- 
Thomas Zander

PGP signature