[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [oic] ODF 1.1 compatibility / manifest:version in ODF 1.2
As I was saying ... How about when the specification is simply wrong? Would you not make advisories about that? Or a security problem with the recommended encryption? Would you not mitigate that, even if it meant going outside of the requirements of the spec? I think pragmatism is valuable in these situations. The idea is to foster interoperability, not create meaningless barriers and breakage. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: oic@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:oic@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Andreas J Guelzow Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:06 To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [oic] ODF 1.1 compatibility / manifest:version in ODF 1.2 On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 10:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I would recommend something that the OIC can do within its sphere, and that won't happen very quickly, if at all, at the ODF TC: > > Recommend that ODF 1.2 consumers accept the package whether or not the attribute is set. > > Recommend that producers only produce that attribute if there is > something *about*the*manifest* that requires ODF 1.2 package > provisions. That is, if additional provisions that are not in ODF 1.1 > and earlier packages are relied upon, such as additional encryption > methods, etc. I do not think it is appropriate for the OIC to recommend the creation invalid ODF files. Andreas > > I helped write that requirement and it was a mistake. My bad. Unfortunately, there are folks who think it is a good idea. > > - Dennis > [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]