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

Sorry, Dennis.  "Conformable" as a term doesn't work well.  I don't think 
that we should, in an international standard, be using subtle grammatical 
variations to express important distinctions in terminology, especially 
when introducing a novel term.   There is too great a risk that it will 
not stand up to translation to other languages, especially when we already 
have "conforming", "conformance" and "conformant" as terms.

But I'm certainly open to alternatives.  Why not something like "Extended" 
conformance class?  That seems clear enough.


"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 02/06/2009 
07:15:45 PM:

> 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 
> elements and it probably have to identify the hosting in some way) at 
> ceiling and (strictly) conforming at the stricter level.  If strict is 
> usable because it is a term of art in OASIS specification (although we 
> not following the document that uses that definition), I'll give up 
> 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").

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