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] Our Position on the Conformance Proposal

OF480620EC.0B2488D5-ON85257569.0058F959-85257569.005D68FA@lotus.com" type="cite">
1) 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.

Jomar Silva

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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