RE: [oic] package conformance testing, wishlist

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

You'll get push-back from people who think that the standalone
<office:document> XML document should be deprecated (although I'm not one of
them).

Meanwhile, I do think it is particularly useful to identify "gaps" as well
as places where test assertions can be made already (the shalls and mays).  

(Considering who we are, my wishlist is for an "Interoperable ODF" or
ODF-I.)

 - Dennis 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hanssens Bart [mailto:Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:00
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oic/200901/msg00028.html
To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [oic] package conformance testing, wishlist


Probably I'm stating the obvious...

It might be a good idea when we're going through the spec
highlighting the "shalls" / testable items, to also keep
an eye on:

- parts that can't be tested properly
- a wishlist for a "basic-ODF" or a stricter spec

For example, personally, I would love to have a spec stating
that ODF-readers must be able to open both packaged and
non-packaged documents, that writers are required to keep
all "strange" files when round-tripping etc.


Best regards,

Bart