[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Our Position on the Conformance Proposal
OF480620EC.0B2488D5-ON85257569.0058F959-85257569.005D68FA@lotus.com" type="cite">+11) Eliminate the "conforming" class altogether, and use the existing definition of the "extended" class (for producers and documents) as the one and only conformance class/level. This would mean that implementers would continue to have the same extensibility options that they have had in prior versions of ODF.This proposal was already considered. We also considered the exact opposite, having only a single conformance class, which did not allow any extensions at all. Their was consensus for neither proposal. The present proposal is a compromise that gives two conformance clauses, one for each use. This compromise had greater support than either of the single conformance class proposals. I have a feeling that if we did reopen discussion on this topic, we'd be more likely to end up with a single conformance class that disallowed extensions altogether than a single conformance class that allowed extensions. To me it appears that allowing an "extended" conformance class was a gracious concession. "Live and let live". Your ability to have an "extended" conformance class does not interfere with someone else's desire to have an unextended conformance class, and vice versa. If you upset that compromise, and go for an absolutist "my way or the highway" approach, the results might be even less acceptable to you. That's my personal observation.
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature