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] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8

Hi Dennis

2009/2/5 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>:
> Interesting, Bob:
> In the 90 minutes or so since my note, I have become rather fond of having
> conformable documents (the ODF 1.1 conforming document) and (strictly)
> conforming documents, so that there is no sloppiness by which "conforming
> document" can any longer mean anything but a "strictly conforming document."
> I thought you would like that.

I guess for me "conforming" doesn't imply sloppiness.  I'm quite
comfortable with viewing "conformance" as meaning "strict
conformance".  So "strictly" is redundant.

> My biggest concern about moving conforming to strictly conforming as the
> designation is the prospect for confusion with the older nomenclature.
> Also, the emphatic nature of "strictly conforming" appeals to me, as I have
> said, and I for one would like the term to have normative force.  (I will
> probably use it anyhow, in my work.)
> How's this for a compromise:
> 1. Use "conformable document" as the level that corresponds to the ODF 1.1
> "conforming document" (assuming that OASIS allows us to name a conformance
> class/target without using conformance in its name).

Its an interesting direction to take which does maybe open a whole new
chapter in nomenclature.  I don't have a problem with the "geekiness"
of what Michael proposes.  On the whole, I tend to agree with Rob's
sentiment regarding a single conformance class for odf documents.
What Michael's proposal does is to create a differently named
conformance which seems like a reasonable compromise.  We have one
conformance class for odf documents.  And another for the
"OpenDocument Host Language".  That wortks for me.


> 2. Use "strictly conforming document" as ODF 1.2 documents that comply
> precisely with the schema (formerly the strict schema) and declare that
> "conforming" is always a contraction of "strictly conforming" and none other
> for ODF 1.2.
> Some other touch-ups are required, but that is the key idea.  Of course this
> also works if we simply use "conforming document" in (2), but I really like
> the punch of "strictly conforming" along with (a) its giving normative
> recognition to a common informal usage and (b) it making it emphatically
> clear to users of the earlier specifications that there is a change in the
> nomenclature that reuses some of the same words in a new way.
> Can that work for you?
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Jolliffe [mailto:bobjolliffe@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 13:31
> To: Michael.Brauer@sun.com
> Cc: OpenDocument Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8
> Michael
> I like the solution you have proposed and will happily support it.  It
> seems I am doomed to disagree with Dennis, but mostly I do like the
> names.  The various forms of "wobbly"-conformance suffer from the same
> weakness as implying, at least to the lay person, some sort of
> sub-standard conformance.  Here there is no ambiguity.  Just
> conformance.  I think that is at it should be.
> I do agree with Dennis that "dialect" and "variant" might have some
> potential, but thus far I'm in favour of the way you have it.
> Dialectic conformance - a synthesis of contradictions - takes us down
> a long-trodden path :-)
> Regards
> Bob
> 2009/2/5 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>:
>> Michael,
>> I will examine the revision with great interest.  Thanks for your
> struggling
>> with this.
>> 1. I favor the two-tiered approach, as you know.
>> 2. I am assuming that the only schema will now be what has been called the
>> strict schema in the past.  That is an useful simplification.
>> 3. I don't like the names very much, but that may be just me.
>>  3.1 For one thing, I have become fond of "strict conformance" and
>> "strictly-conformant."  I find that a powerful designation and I think it
>> aligns with the strong goals of those communities that establish
>> requirements for use of strictly-conformant ODF Documents in interchange
> and
>> for public and civil purposes.  It seems useful in branding, badging, and
>> for other purposes where documents are expected to be squeeky clean.
>>  3.2 For the other, the term is simply too geeky and I don't think it
> helps
>> maintain a common understanding of what it is about.  I guess it means
> that
>> ODF is the host language for a customized version with limited extensions
>> (foreign elements being a circumscribed way of doing it, especially if the
>> underlying strictly-conformant ODF document is meant to be useful).  Is
> that
>> the sense you give it?
>> 4. I am not objecting to qualifying the term if it is as easy to convey as
>> strict conformance is and we are clear about the correspondence with
>> "conformant" in previous specifications.  [In thinking out loud, below, I
>> came up with "conformable" for the document, in contrast with the
>> strictly-conformant document, but producers would still be conforming and
>> strictly conforming, I think.]
>> 5. Maybe we can kick this around for a few days in search of a better
> term.
>> If strict conformance is as appealing to others as I find it, maybe we
> just
>> use plain conformance in the sense it has for ODF 1.1 for now, with
> leaving
>> the search for a better term open.
>>  - Dennis
>>  - - - - - - - - - - -
>> More thinking out loud -
>> Terms I rejected when thinking about this:
>>  - loose conformance (has the right tone, but can apply as easily to a
>> strictly-conforming consumer and producer)
>>  - weak conformance (same problem as above)
>>  - limited conformance (ditto)
>>  - modified conformance (again)
>>  - altered conformance (?)
>>  - custom conformance (sounds too much like a feature)
>>  - extended conformance (likewise)
>> If the words conformant and conformance are not used, or not used alone,
> so
>> there is no contraction that creates confusion with (strict) conformance
> and
>> (strictly) conformant, that might be more promising.
>>  - dialect
>>  - variant
>> [I am tempted to list "deviant," but we should save discussion about
>> deviations to apply to all deviations around fully-implemented
>> strictly-conformant documents consumed and produced by a processor.]
>> If there was a term that reflected how a strictly-conformant document is
>> obtained by reducing out the foreign matter, that would help too.  I
> thought
>> of "reduced conformance" but that is off base, even though it might be the
>> right kind of tone.
>> Oh, how about "conformable?"
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 05:24
>> To: OpenDocument Mailing List
>> Subject: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8
>> Dear TC members,
>> when I look over the discussions regarding the conformance clauses, it
>> seems to me that there is actually a very large area of consensus, and
>> that there are only a few, but essential items where the opinions
>> differ. These are:
>> - Should there be a loose conformance level for documents that allows
>> foreign elements everywhere?
>> - Can we remove that level, that we had in ODF 1.1, without prior notice?
>> - Should/Can we demand that a conforming producer must be able to create
>> (strictly) conforming documents?
>> In addition to this, there seems to be a strong demand for a conformance
>> level which does not allow foreign elements, and also for having a very
>> limited number of conformance level. My impression is that we agree all
>> agree on this.
>> The requirements are to some degree conflicting, but I anyway tried to
>> find a solution that may be acceptable to all of you. The key points of
>> it are:
>> - There will be two conformance levels for documents. One does not
>> support foreign elements and is called "OpenDocument document
>> conformance". The other one does support foreign elements without
>> restrictions and is called "OpenDocument Host Language Conformance".
>> - There will be two conformance modes for producers. A conforming
>> OpenDocument document producer must be able to produce conforming
>> OpenDocument documents. A conforming OpenDocument Host Language Producer
>> must be able to produce OpenDocument Host Language Documents, but there
>> is no requirement that it must be able to produce conforming
>> OpenDocument documents.
>> This proposals meets the requirement to have a strict OpenDocument
>> conformance, but it also provides a conformance mode for application
>> that wish to extend OpenDocument. This means that we have two
>> conformance levels rather than one, but the new name of what I called
>> "loose" conformance in prior proposals better reflects the
>> characteristics of this mode. And it lowers the risk of confusion. The
>> proposal also provides a conformance mode for ODF 1.1 documents that
>> contain foreign elements and shall be adapted to ODF 1.2.
>> The new name "OpenDocument host language conformance" is actually a name
>> I have adopted from the XHTML 1.1 specification, which provides a "XHTML
>> host language document" conformance level. It describes XHTML documents
>> that make use of extensions modules. In so far, we would be very close
>> to XHTML in this regard.
>> The update proposal can be found here:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31052/conformance-definiti
>> on-proposal-v8.odt
>> The version I'm referring to is the first one in the document.
>> I have made a few non substantial corrections and clarifications, most
>> of them have been suggested by Rob (Rob, thanks for having a close look
>> at the proposal). A list of these changes can be found in the proposal
>> itself.
>> I would be glad if this proposal is acceptable for all of you and would
>> like to discuss and maybe vote on it on Monday.
>> 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
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>> --
>> This message has been scanned by DST MailScanner
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

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