RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT AND TOOLS

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

I don't expect anything to change much in our views about who the
authoritative version is good for and what it can be counted on for.

I am curious what the download statistics are for OASIS standards that have
multiple formats, including PDF, regardless of the form that is identified
as authoritative.

Is it known? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:38
To: 'Robin Cover'
Cc: 'oic@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [oic] state-of-interop-cd-03 - AGREEMENT ON TC DOCUMENT FORMAT
AND TOOLS

[ ... ]

However, I am concerned that although an original author will see their
intentions realized when they look at documents they write in the same
product version they used to author with, there are these too-prevalent
situations where that intention is not conveyed to others because of
interchange interoperability problems.  This is even funnier in a Public
Review situation, since comments about problems in appearance will not be
reproducible by those using the original tool.  For final form formats, we
at least have a way of holding the thing steady while we wring its neck. 

This kind of system-level incoherence reminds me of the past problems about
HTML e-mail rendering where the recipient doesn't see what the sender does
but can't demonstrate it to the sender (unless power-user enough to send
screen shots). 

[ ... ]