[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next
"Andreas J. Guelzow" <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca> wrote on 01/13/2011 11:45:41 AM: > > I concur with Dennis. Suggesting that implementers may use CSD's to > justify the use of the ODF namespaces for feature will just continue the > current nightmare of some implementations creating files claiming to be > ODF1.2 before such a standard has been approved. If an implementor wants > to use a feature proposed for a new standard it really should use a > foreign namespace. If in the end that use will match the feature as > adopted in an ODF standard it would be easy for any implementation > supporting the feature in ODF also to support that foreign element. > I think the important thing is to have some consistency between what your office:version attribute is and what markup your document uses. If version = "1.0" or "1.1" then you shouldn't be using any ODF-namespaced enhancements from ODF. If you set version to "1.2", then I think you want to be conforming to some version of the ODF 1.2 draft. It would be odd not to. One can conform to a WD, or CSD or CS just as one can conform to a standard. Conformance is just the relation of the product to the conformance clause. It would be clearer, I think, if we had a consistent way to express a fine grained version, such as "1.2 (CSD06)" or even eventually "1.2 (Errata 01)". Remember, OASIS requires that we have conforming implementations before we can send a Committee Specification for ballot as an OASIS Standard. So there will always be a period of time when we have implementations of not-yet-approved specification. In any case, I'd rather have this problem (vendors implementing our drafts early) than the opposite problem (vendors being slow to implement our published standards). I wonder if the impact of the problem would be reduced if we can turn around standards faster? In other words, would it be more tolerable if a vendor implements a draft 6 months before the standard is finally approved compared to implementing it 2 years before approval? I think that is something we have more direct control over. Regards, -Rob
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]