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: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OFFICE-2694) ODF 1.2 draft 3breaks modularity

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2694?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=19340#action_19340 ] 

Robert Weir  commented on OFFICE-2694:

Modularity is based on the definition of the schema and the conformance targets.  We  have different conformance targets for documents, formulas and packages.  So an implementation can claim to be a conformant Package Consumer, or an ODF Spreadsheet Consumer, or a Formula Evaluator.  How we distribute the conformance clauses in the text does not change that.

Having the three parts approved independently would provide no additional modularity but would impose a substantially greater process overhead to review, approve and maintain each part independently, both in OASIS and in ISO.   

This is especially complicated by spreadsheet formulas, encryption and digital signatures which, as we all know, cut across parts of the standard.  Unless we have these features perfect, maintenance of these features would require treatment in multiple errata and multiple ISO corrigenda.  I'd like to avoid this unnecessary complication.

I think we can do some work, in an ODF-Next, to make the core schema more modular.  I suggest looking at the XHTML modularization effort for a possible approach.   But this will likely involve 8-12 modules, not just 3.

> ODF 1.2 draft 3 breaks modularity
> ---------------------------------
>                 Key: OFFICE-2694
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2694
>             Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Conformance, General
>    Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 Part 3 CD 2, ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD 5, ODF 1.2 Part 2 CD 3
>         Environment: This issue applies to the restructured parts 1-2-3 and the overview that are balloted for approval as a Committee Draft(s) for Public Review: OpenDocument-v1.2-draft3.odt, OpenDocument-v1.2-part1-cd04-rev08.odt, OpenDocument-v1.2-part2-cd02-rev08.odt, and OpenDocument-v1.2-part3-cd01-rev07.odt.
>            Reporter: Dennis Hamilton
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: ODF 1.2
> 1. This new packaging breaks the modularity by which part2 and part3 are independently usable and relatively self-contained.  
>     1.1 The removal of conformance sections from all parts, with the only conformance section being in the OpenDocument-v1.2-draft3.odt causes these parts to be inextricably intertwined.  This strikes me as a question of substance that requires discussion.
>     1.2 This organization also creates unnecessary duplication and burdens readers with the need to consult multiple documents for no useful purpose.
>     1.3 The additional complexity of maintenance of the specifications, potential errata and defect-reconciliation efforts, and the prospect of inconsistency between the parts seems unjustifiable.  (There are already inconsistencies between the new 1.2-draft3 and provisions referenced in the other parts of the specification.)
>  2. It also seems excessive that OpenDocument-v1.2-draft3.odt consists of 
>   * 93 pages of front matter, including duplication of the tables of contents of parts 1-3, 
>    * 3 pages of back matter, and 
>    * only three pages having modest narrative content and creating a list of conformance clauses that makes it indispensible to the other parts.
>  3. Finally, I think this approach is an unwarranted imposition on the time and efforts of those who we wish to embrace this specification, invest in its review, and engage in implementation, testing, and verification of products that support OpenDocument.
> [Note: I am concerned that attempting to remedy this as part of a re-issue in a 15-day secondary public review would be too dificult.  After examining the material and the new sections 2 of Parts 1-3, I am satisfied that correction by elimination of v1.2-draft3 is workable.]

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


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