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 Clauses: Building consensus around ODF 1.2

2009/2/23 Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> Hi Doug,
> with some interest, I have read your blog regarding conformance clauses.
> http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/02/19/building-consensus-around-odf-1-2.aspx

Yes it was interesting Michael.

> So, first of all, then reading your blog, I got the impression that the
> current conformance clauses would contain only one level. You are
> probably aware of this, but I anyway would like to point out that the
> current proposal contains two levels. One allows the so called foreign
> elements, the other does not.

Which in and of itself is a little of a smokescreen, compared to
most specifications, which require conformance to the specification.
  How about a single statement,
"Conformance is defined as   	

Testing to determine whether an implemented system fulfills its
requirements against
all normative requirements of the standard.

The constraint being that 1.2 has normative requirements to replace 'statements'
as is  currently the case.

> You further state that the conformance "clause was inserted into a
> committee draft at the last minute". It was not. When
> uploading draft 8j on the 11th, Patrick clearly stated that the
> conformance clauses have been integrated.

I agree that for such a contention issue (see the email log)
it perhaps should have received an agenda item with intent to vote?

> Regarding reaching consensus: In order to reach consensus on the
> conformance clauses, it is essential to understand what the concerns of
> those are who disagree, and also to get proposals what needs to be
> changed in order to make the conformance clauses acceptable. I have
> asked several times for specific feedback to the individual clauses, but
> did not get much feedback. The feedback that I got has been to the
> best of my knowledge integrated into the proposal. In so far, it is not
> clear, at least to me, where your concerns are.

Perhaps you simply don't want to see the concerns Michael?

> I further have asked for feedback from those who did not agree to the
> committee draft last Monday in the TC call, but unfortunately did
> not get any feedback so far.

Please take this as negative feedback.

> You announced that you will explain your position in more detail, and
> I'm looking forward to read this on the TC's mailing list. I further
> would be glad to receive specific suggestions how the current conformance
> clauses have to be modified to get your acceptance. Knowing which specific
> modification you would like to see for the text of the conformance clauses
> would be very helpful and I think essential to figure out whether the TC can
> reach a consensus regarding the conformance clauses, or not.

I can only assume this negative feedback, as with all my others on
conformance, will be ignored.

I'll leave you on that thought.

Dave Pawson
Docbook FAQ.

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