[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. Regards Bob > 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]