Re: [office] Moving forward on Conformance

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Hi Rob,

thank you for this summary. I think it very well describes the situation.

What I would like to add here is what you said in another mail, that is, 
that we must also consider that some more work regarding conformance is 
done in the OIC TC.

So here are my preferences.

On 02/03/09 17:06, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 1) For products, I'd like to see us follow C) and define conformance for 
> ODF Documents, Producers, Consumers and Processors.  B) would also be 
> acceptable.

My preference is B). The simple reason is that is appears to be 
difficult to define requirements for processors without specifying what 
their purpose is.

I actually could imagine that it may be much easier to define 
conformance for processors in the OIC TC, where we may define different 
classes of processors.

> 
> 2) For conformance classes, My preference is for C, but B would also be 
> acceptable.  Of the dual-class choices, E is the least offensive.

C would be my preference, too, but B is also acceptable.

> 
> 3) And for the last question, this will depend on what agreement we can 
> arrive to on the other two questions, but I generally want to avoid a 
> proliferation of conformance classes, with applications as well as 
> documents.

I agree to this, too.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering