[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8
In OASIS parlance, strict conformance means "conformance of an implementation that employs only the requirements and/or functionality defined in the specification and no more (i.e., no extensions to the specification are implemented). I'd take that to mean without namespace extensions of course, but also without RDF metadata extensions, without office:meta extensions, without style:*properties extensions, etc. It is probably worth preserving (or at least reserving) "strict" for that designation, even if we don't formally put it in release 1.2. Or think of it this way, if we allowed some kinds of extensions in strict, then what do we call a document that has no extensions? -Rob From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> To: "'Bob Jolliffe'" <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>, <Michael.Brauer@sun.com> Cc: "'OpenDocument Mailing List'" <office@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: 02/05/2009 05:11 PM Subject: RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8 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. 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). 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]