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

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2694?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=19345#action_19345 ] 

Dennis Hamilton commented on OFFICE-2694:
-----------------------------------------

Michael,

I submit that doubling the number of conformance-like targets is compexification and duplication aplenty.

There are Conforming OpenDocument Documents as well as OpenDocument Documents.  This is true for all of the conformance targets:  the ones with "Conforming" in their proper names simply refer to the ones that do not have "Conforming" in their proper names.

There is no apparent difference in the extent of what the terms refer to.

There is a complexity, however, in that technically, a conformance statement in the body of the specification is expected to identify the conformance target(s) that it applies under.  This leads to a new set of questions about what it means when "conforming" (no capital letter) is used in one of the parts.   We already have terms that are variously capitalized, making it unclear what is intended.  E.g., "conforming OpenDocument Document," "Conforming OpenDocument Document," "OpenDocument document," "Conforming OpenDocument extended Document," etc.  There's just this much more that needs to be checked, that translators have to deal with, etc., since these are very specialized and significant technical terms.  We need to be consistent in their introduction and their use throughought the specifications and we have hereby made much more work.

For example, what exactly do the "shall" provision and the term "conforming document" apply to in the first paragraph of section 2.1.2 in OpenDocument-v1.2-part1-cd05.odt?   What *is* an "OpenDocument extended document"?  What *is* an "OpenDocument document"?  If it is only defined by conformance statements, is it not a conformance target?  If not, then what?



> 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