[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next
Michael, thank you for your thoughts on the future process for further development of the feature set of the OASIS ODF Standard. I have one objection. First, have a happy holiday season with the joyful satisfaction of knowing that the CD06 Public Review has actually commenced. In short: I object to any introduction of speculative features by premature appropriation of the ODF x.y schemas and namespaces without any version control and without the full application of the standards-development process. - Dennis More thoughts: To suggest to implementers that a CSD that has never seen Public Review is safe to implement strikes me as ridiculous. It also creates a distorted preferential access to the ODF x.y schemas and namespaces that seems incompatible with any claim to an open-standards process. The potential for a versioning disaster in the schemas and namespaces seems to be an unnecessary risk. I also think that it subverts what it means to be "standard" in the open-standards sense as well as the senses used by Standards Development Organizations that have independent interoperable implementation as a focus. I also think that it can lead to unfortunate baggage because of the inertial affect (and justification) that the CSD has been implemented, whatever its quality is finally judged to be. I don't see how any governmental agency, for example, would write procurement specifications that named or even tolerated CSD-defined speculative features. Certainly no other specification can make normative use of them. There is an advantage to new features being worked out cooperatively among implementers as mutually-agreed foreign extensions, extensions that are handled appropriately in implementations that are unaware of them. This does not require ratification in the ODF 1.x namespace(s) and schema(s). There is advantage to having them on their own "tracks." With luck, the results will be sufficiently well-specified and sufficiently desirable that incorporation into ODF x.y is not difficult. If the feature model is not carried over wholesale, the form incorporated in the ODF x.y schemas and namespaces will be differentiated and the implementations of the extension can be adjusted in some way (and ideally there is harmonization or we aren't talking about the same feature modeling at all). I suggest that something to work on first, perhaps in OIC too, is the identification of practices for extensions on the ODF 1.2 base that are safe in the face of eventual incorporation into ODF x.y (and not) and guidance in how implementations can consistently treat extensions as unrecognized foreign features so there is a good level of predictability and stability, even in the presence of extensions (recognized or not). This is not unlike guidance for implementations that selectively implement a subset of the already-standard features too and we could all use consistency in that regard. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Brauer [mailto:michael.brauer@oracle.com] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 05:03 To: OpenDocument Mailing List Subject: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next [ ... ] Where are a lot of advantages this model has compared to the one we used for ODF 1.2: - Enhancements and new features are available on CSD level in less than 6 months. - Vendors may implement CSDs instead of extended conforming documents with vendor specific extensions. This -- provides a higher level of interoperability between ODF implementations that go beyond the last approved OASIS standard -- provides transparency to users [ ... ] Best regards, and best wishes for the holiday season. Michael [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]