Re: [office] Proposal for an ODF 2.0 Requirements SC

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Warren Turkal" <turkal@google.com> wrote on 07/24/2008 05:16:07 PM:

> 
> Why 1.2 instead of 1.3 or whatever? Is 2.0 going to be a backward
> incompatible with 1.x? In other words, are we going to be removing
> tags/attributes from the XML?
> 

If there are specific questions that the TC wants the SC to research and 
provide recommendations on, we can add that to the Scope statement.  For 
example:

To propose a name for the next ODF revision, whether 1.3 or 2.0;
To recommend whether the next version should be backwards compatible, or 
whether it may introduce incompatible changes;

But if the TC believes that it knows the answer to that last question, 
then we can state that as constraints in the SC's scope:

To ensure that the work recommended by the TC will not harm backwards 
compatibility, and in particular will avoid changes that do X, Y and Z.

-Rob