Patrick
The draft that you circulated contains the following:
2. exploring new or experimental ideas for office document
representation, and
I was simply retaining that, but by prefixing it with âto support and encourage implementers inâ I was intending to imply that the experimentation would and should be done by implementers, not by the TC, but that the TC would no doubt wish to encourage it.
Putting it another way, I donât think that the TC should be experimenting with new ideas in a vacuum, and should always be led by ideas from implementers.
I would expect TC members to want to submit proposals for how to meet new requirements, but I would expect those proposals to be based upon use cases for new application areas that have arisen in the marketplace with end-users and implementers, or upon experiments carried out by implementers, or both.
Is that any clearer?
Kind regards,
Francis
From: office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau
Sent: 08 March 2021 16:56
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] Groups - odf-charter-revised-change-tracked-01 uploaded
Francis,
I'm curious about your thinking behind #2:
"new or experimental ideas for office document representation"
Do you mean representation with regard to the format of ODF or do you mean new or experimental ideas for office applications, which require changes to the underlying ODF?
I ask because it seems like the standard office suite has been stuck for decades now, extremely useful in a variety of use cases but not much beyond the lowest common denominator.
Perhaps that's a good sweet spot to be in, one with millions of users, but you know, before the first spreadsheet program, there were no spreadsheet users.
What office need is there, where ODF could serve as the interchange format, akin to spreadsheets, before there were spreadsheets?
GIS data? IoT? (although I shudder at that one)
Thanks for the word crafting!
Patrick
On 3/8/21 7:24 AM, Francis Cave wrote:
Patrick and all
The words âin the second phaseâ I think should be replaced by âon further development of the formatâ, since the concept of two phases has been removed in the draft.
That section could possibly be better expressed as follows:
The work of this TC on further development of the format will be guided by the following overall aims:
1. to support and encourage implementers and end-users in the identification of new areas of application of the format,
2. to support and encourage implementers in exploring new or experimental ideas for office document representation,
3. to support and encourage TC members and implementers in submitting proposals for extending the expressiveness of the format.
Iâm struggling to find appropriate words, but Iâd also like to add something about the need to judge proposals for further development of the format in terms of there being a consensus of the TC:
- that the use case is clear,
- that the proposed technical solution is feasible and sufficiently stable/mature to justify inclusion in the standard.
Francis
Submitter's message
Greetings!
This is a hastily edited rough cut at revision of the ODF charter. I'm not personally committed to any of it so feel free to cut/paste/etc.
I would like to take this up on March 24th so we will need to have discussion on the email list in order to get that done.
Appreciate your comments and suggestions.
Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!
Patrick
-- Patrick Durusau
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau