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] Motion for approving ODF 1.2 as Committee Draft andsubmitting it for pubic review.

On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 02:37 -0600, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

> I am struggling to understand why so much energy is being spent on
> this issue.  The point of the effort is to produce an approved ODF 1.2
> standard.  That is a matter of time but is the inevitable outcome.  At
> that point the authoritative version of that standard will indeed be
> formatted using an approved standard (ie itself).
> Is the argument that all the committee drafts produced along the way
> should not use the pre-approved format, but then we convert to ODF 1.2
> for the final publication?  That seems silly and perhaps prone to
> error.  I fully support the current proposal to designate the odf 1.2
> version as the authoritative working document.  To me it is a simple
> expression of confidence in the end result.

I don't care in what format drafts are published. My problem is with
having the _final_ version of a ODF1.2 to be written in ODF1.2. In that
case the specification of the standard would depend on that
specification itself. As mathematician I can well imagine a text that
has more than one self-consistent interpretations, ie. a different
implementation could implement that standard differently but in such a
way that its presentation of the standard again fits what it is doing.


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