[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] The Rule of Least Power
+1 -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Zander [mailto:T.Zander@nokia.com] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00192.html Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 06:18 To: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office] The Rule of Least Power [ ... ] You missed my point; the point is that nobody here has been able to claim why its an issue at all that implementation-x saves some properties only implementation-x is concerned with and implemention-y will have zero problems with. The bottom line here is that somehow people seem to conclude that having non-defined information to store in the file is a fitting way to determine non-conformance. While completely ignoring the much harder to-check problem of verifying that implementations actually honoring the odf-specified properties. > > In reality applications will be chosen based on which subset of the > > features of ODF they support, both loading+displaying and saving them. > > If your app saves the extension data and it's re-opened in the same app, > then nothing is lost. Only if it goes via a couple of other ODF > processors. That's the price of standardization. Thats what I was saying in my mail as well, and this is fine. The fact that extra-information is lost is not an issue for us and certainly not a reason to change the ODF specification. -- Thomas Zander
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]