Re: [office] Evolving ODF, Interop and Multiple Implementations

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

office@lists.oasis-open.org wrote on 10/25/2012 04:34:21
AM:
> 
> Rob Weir wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> I would presume some level of endorsement by multiple implementers
> is already implied when new features get voted in to ODF. I'm
> unconvinced we should add more ceremony at this point, possibly
> leading to an even slower evolvement of ODF?
> 

If we did not include features that only one implementation
used, then our work on ODF 1.3 would be faster, due to not engaging in
specification of those features, right?  But not by much.  

> > In other words, I'd like to discourage adding
capabilities to ODF 1.3 
> > unless it promotes interoperability.
> > 
> There is a certain circularity in this argument. If a majority of
> the TC deems an addition or change to ODF useful, we should get it
> in.
> 

That is not circularity.  That is just saying
that majorities can be unwise at times.  We already know that. 

We can look at standards like the EJB spec, where
the various vendors went in and each added their own special settings and
behaviors that in the end there was almost no interop at all.  It
was a purely a standard for the marketing department.  

I'm not looking to undo a majority here.  I'm
only suggesting that we consider this carefully, when new features are
proposed.  Why are we adding this to ODF?  Will anyone implement
it?  Will it improve interop?  Would this be better off as a
vendor extensions?

-Rob

> Best regards,
> 
> -- 
> 
> Thorsten Behrens
> 
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg; GF: Jeff
> Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
> [attachment "att3fhic.dat" deleted by Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM]