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

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

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:

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