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: Re: [office] Proposed wording of response to JP2 (change tracking)


<office@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 11/26/2014 02:15:26 PM:

> From: Chris Rae <Chris.Rae@microsoft.com>

> To: ODF TC List <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 11/26/2014 02:17 PM
> Subject: [office] Proposed wording of response to JP2 (change tracking)
> Sent by: <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> I thought I’d get the ball rolling here – how about the following
> for a response:

>  
> “Change Tracking is a complex feature and the TC acknowledges that
> there are improvements that can be made – the Advanced Document
> Collaboration subcommittee is working on exactly that for ODF 1.3.
> However, we disagree with the suggestion of adding a blanket
> ‘implementation-defined’ caveat to the whole of section 5.5. The TC
> will investigate specific interoperability issues within the section
> if further information can be provided.”

>  
> Chris

We could also argue that putting a blanket statement of "implementation-defined" would not be accurate.   Although behavior is not as tightly bound as we'd like it in some places, it is not entirely unbound either.  

We also need to watch out for the distinction between implementation-defined and implementation-dependent.  If we say implementation-defined we've put an additional requirement on implementors, to document how that is implemented.   If we do that (and I'm not sure we can in errata) then we'd need to make it clear what exactly an implementor must document.

I guess it all comes down to this:  a vague comment does not improve the specification.

In any case, rather than saying "However, we disagree with the suggestion of adding a blanket", maybe something like "However, we believe it would not be entirely accurate or useful to implementors of the standard to add...".    Or something like that.

-Rob

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