OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?


robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 02/03/2009 09:15:01 AM:
> This is really a red herring.  However bad you think interoperability 
> would be in that case, you must admit that it is made worse, not better, 
> by extending the documents with private schemas. 
Sorry. Did I say anything about private schemas?
> Also consider that the problem you describe above can be addressed and is 
> being addressed by interoperability testing, the work of the OIC TC, etc. 
> The ODF vendors, most of them at least, have a keen interest in improving 
> interoperability in that area.  However, allow ODF documents to be freely 
> extended with private schemas without the user's choice, and you have made 
> the problem much much harder.  We can improve interoperability where we 
> agree on a schema.  But it is considerable more difficult to do that when 
> a private schema is involved, one which perhaps is not disclosed. Remember 
> a private schema extension is not even required to be made available on 
> RAND terms, let alone made freely available.
Well, if I had said that private schemas would help here that might be a 
valid point. But I didn't.

Actually using the ODF metadata mechanism is the "correct" solution in 
my view to the problem posed.

But I pointed it out to merely illustrate that simply saying *ODF* 
really loud doesn't solve the interoperability issue.

Nor does wanting to market ODF mean that it automatically meets any user 

Yes, I really do think that ODF 1.2 with the new metadata features, can 
meet many user requirements but that doesn't mean that I think it meets 
all user requirements.

The question (to me anyway) is whether we develop ODF to meet an ever 
expanding universe of user requirements or do we promote ODF * (whatever 
version we are at) as meeting user requirements?

I readily concede that I enjoy finding ways that ODF can meet user 
requirements but for me, user requirements and not the choices of IT 
departments or marketing strategies of vendors remain primary.

Remember that I come from a user community and still think of software 
as meeting user requirements and not the desires of vendors. It may 
really be that simple. I don't see the world as a vendor.

Hope you are having a great day!


Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]