[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8
I would really like a simple adjective. I understand the concept, I just don't think it is usefully applied as a name for a conformance level. I also don't think it means anything until defined specifically as a conformance level for ODF, so it is no better than "loose," just different. I'm note even sure how to use "host language conformant" in a sentence. I'll go review your use of it and see how it reads. Have you seen it used as a defined level of conformance by anyone (as opposed to talking about such kinds of conformance)? My concern is that this is not an established or "speaking" term in the community for which it needs to be understood for ODF. Are you going to make a normative reference to another standard (I think that is what borrowing means, like using ISO/IEC conformance nomenclature). I'm still arguing for conformable (which is suggestive of the situation, where in a hosted thing, you're not expected to be able to ignore the new elements and it probably have to identify the hosting in some way) at the ceiling and (strictly) conforming at the stricter level. If strict is not usable because it is a term of art in OASIS specification (although we are not following the document that uses that definition), I'll give up about that. But I bet strict conformance sticks in popular use, even though informally. I also think you'll here people talking about OpenDocument conformance (without the "document"). - Dennis OK: I am starting to repeat myself only louder. I'm sticking to my perspective that the term lacks any particle of explanatory power, and if a reference to a definition has to be made in every occurrence it is simply a bad idea. But these are my last questions on this particular aspect. -----Original Message----- From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 04:03 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: 'OpenDocument Mailing List' Subject: Re: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8 Hi Dennis, On 05.02.09 21:14, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Michael, > > 3. I don't like the names very much, but that may be just me. I agree to Rob that we should reserve the term "strict" for something that may even be more strict than what we have today. The term "host language conformance" is a term that is used in other standards, too, and that very well characterizes this conformance level, without having to interpret terms like "strict" or "loose", which can have many meanings. So, why not use an established and "speaking" term here? Our charter says we should borrow from existing standards where possible. Why not use a term that is used in other standards, 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]