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

[André Rebentisch <andre.rebentisch@arsaperta.com>]

Am 25.10.2012 23:57, schrieb robert_weir@us.ibm.com:
>> In principle parties are free to implement earlier incarnations of the
>> format.
> Yes. But that is not really an argument for deciding what additions we
> put into ODF 1.3.

You appear concerned that parties are capable to support a next gen
feature set, and raise a conformance issue: "If only a single
implementation will support a proposed feature, then existing
extensibility mechanisms should be used."

Two cases
1. Depth: Overcome underspecification, reduce ambiguity
2. Scope: Add new capabilities

ad 1 no need to consider whether implementations do implement it in the
same way, the revised spec, the next version, _defines_ how it is
supposed to be. ad 2 here the implementation committment argument may
apply. Better not mix both up. At least one party is obliged to support
the ISO version.

>> >> In other words, I'd like to discourage adding capabilities to ODF 1.
>> >> 3 unless it promotes interoperability.
>>
>> Would that speed up the pace of development?
>>
> Development of the spec or the implementation?

Spec.

Best,
André