Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Caution and Disclaimer on Interoperability

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/6/11 jose lorenzo <hozelda@yahoo.com>:
> I just joined today, so please excuse if I am
> repeating material or am a bit off topic.
>
> "Interoperability" and similar terms should be defined
> precisely and conspicuously.

http://sites.google.com/a/odfiic.org/tc/Home/odf-interoperability-and-conformance#TOC-Definitions.
Captures what I've heard about it. If you can provide something
clearer, please help.


>
> In particular, I think a note should be made that
> interoperability does NOT mean that what an office
> suite user visually sees and then saves using one
> "interoperable" or "conformant" application can be
> rendered faithfully on another such conformant
> application.

This has been stated as a desirable goal for this group.
If we can't define it, fair enough, it goes. Until then
lets try.


>
> I make this last statement because I truly doubt that
> ODF will ever be tied down enough to prevent one
> application, designated as "interoperable" according
> to the ODF standard, from arbitrarily inserting binary
> blobs (or an equivalent mapping into printable
> characters, CDATA, PCDATA, etc) into the document as a
> way to store arbitrary proprietary content, arbitrary
> proprietary application or platform state, arbitrary
> proprietary semantics, etc, bypassing the preferred
> ODF structures (if there even exist any in the
> particular case).

We haven't addressed implementation extensions in
any detail as yet. Your point is valid, though an example
or two would help me understand it better.



>
> Hopefully, a note can be added that open source is
> required for "true interoperability", at least
> interoperability at a level that is at all what most
> users of most ODF "interoperable" products would
> expect when they see or hear that word tossed around.

Too late. Yesterday the outcome of this WG agreed to the same
constraints as the parent TC.

I'd love to see open source compliance validation.


>
> The working group may even want to require that in
> order to legally carry some logo or make a claim of
> being interoperable, that a particular disclaimer
> along the above lines be stated (listed...) somewhat
> conspicuously.

Can you see Sun and IBM doing that? I can't.



regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk