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: Evolving ODF, Interop and Multiple Implementations

I want to toss in this idea, for a possible criterion for how we evolve ODF into ODF 1.3.  

As we know ODF has powerful extensibility mechanisms via foreign attributes and elements, in application-defined namespaces.  The ODF 1.2 specification has extended conformance clauses to handle these cases.  So any implementation should currently be able to extend ODF and still claim conformance, so long as they have the basics (the non-extended parts) in conformance.

This leads to the question:  As we evolve ODF, when should we decide to add new capabilities to the specification versus leaving them as implementation-defined extensions?

I'd like to suggest that we do this based on the existence of *multiple implementations* of the new capability, or at least of committed plans of multiple implementers to implement the new capability.

In other words, I'd like to discourage adding capabilities to ODF 1.3 unless it promotes interoperability.  If only a single implementation will support a proposed feature, then existing extensibility mechanisms should be used.



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