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 08:20 -0600, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 16/06/2010 15:51, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> > Andreas
> hmmm, ok, but what is the alternative?
> assume that the standard is an ODF 1.1 (or ODF 1.0) document:
> in that case, the ODF 1.1 (or ODF 1.0) specification would be the reference.
> but the ODF 1.1 (or ODF 1.0) specification is itself an ODF 1.1 (or ODF
> 1.0) document!
> your concern about multiple self-consistent interpretations of ODF 1.2
> applies just as well to ODF 1.1 or ODF 1.0.
> and as already mentioned, the other formats have the problem that they are
> not the editable source, thus being prone to conversion bugs.
> [i believe the ODF TC has more important things to do than resolve this
> philosophical question... how about just dealing with this hypothetical
> scenario only in the (imho exceedingly unlikely) case when it actually
> occurs in practice?]

ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1 are approved. There is nothing we can change about
how they were published. So we can deal wit htat "hypothetical" with
respect to there versions when they arrive.

That does not mean that we should compound the issue by repeating the
same for ODF 1.2. I fail to see why we could not use ODF1.0 or ODF1.1 to
publish the ODF1.2 specs rather than the OpenOffice.org internal format
(that some like to call ODF 1.2).


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