[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next
Hi, On 18.01.2011 15:34, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: OFCF1A322A.C804264B-ON8525781C.004CFCBF-8525781C.004FB36D@lotus.com" type="cite">I agree. Another alternative would be to not implement CSDs at all. But that's also poor for interoperability, because we then will notice interoperability issues between applications, regardless what caused it, only after the approval as OASIS standard. It is when much more difficult to correct them than it is if a specification is in CSD state. Having interop issues in CSD implementations for sure isn't good, but having them in an OASIS standard is worse.<thorsten.zachmann@nokia.com> wrote on 01/18/2011 03:43:28 AM:There is one thing which needs thinking. If a vendor implements a feature as described in a CSD and releases the software using the features there will be documents which use that feature. When then later the feature is changed in a incompatible way applications that don't support the CSD will not be able to show the document correctly which is very bad for interoperability. What do others think about that?This is true. But the alternative proposals are also poor for interoperability, such as using a non-ODF namespace. The real problem is when an implementation writes a document that does not conform to non-extended ODF. Whether this is done by vendor extensions, or by implementation of a draft version of ODF that then changes, or due to a bug, or whatever, the effect is the same. If you are writing out markup that others do not understand, or which they understand differently, than you have this problem. OFCF1A322A.C804264B-ON8525781C.004CFCBF-8525781C.004FB36D@lotus.com" type="cite">I agree, and I think that's a very good point. It is us, the ODF TC, who develops ODF. We control ODF. If we think a proposal is questionable or details are missing, then we don't have to accept that.No amount of syntactic sugar around version attributes will solve this problem. But one way approach to dealing with this issue is to raise the bar for what gets into an approved CSD. In other words, give it sufficient scrutiny so that we have high confidence that once a CSD has been approved that the feature will not change in major ways. I'm not speaking absolutes, but a commitment that we will not approve a feature unless/until we have a high level of confidence. Actually, we have already a (relative) high bar for the integration proposals, when we say that only proposal that are detailed enough that they can be integrated into the specification.shall be approved. This is a prerequisite to determine that enough details are present so that the proposal can be implemented in an unambiguous way, OFCF1A322A.C804264B-ON8525781C.004CFCBF-8525781C.004FB36D@lotus.com" type="cite">Right. But we can and must assume that vendors that implement ODF are interested in interoperable implementations.In other words: 1) We have no control over what vendors implement and when they implement it and what they call it. OFCF1A322A.C804264B-ON8525781C.004CFCBF-8525781C.004FB36D@lotus.com" type="cite">I agree2) Merely renaming things is obviously syntactic sugar and has no real effect 3) The only thing we as a TC control is the contents of a specification and whether it is approved as a CSD. So I suggest that we apply ourselves to where we have the most direct influence. Michael OFCF1A322A.C804264B-ON8525781C.004CFCBF-8525781C.004FB36D@lotus.com" type="cite">-Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php --
Michael Brauer | Oracle Office Development Phone: +49 40 23646 500 | | Oracle Office Global Business Unit ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603 Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Rijnzathe 6, 3454PV De Meern, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]