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

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

Two points Jose.

2008/6/12 jose lorenzo <hozelda@yahoo.com>:
> I took a quick look at ODF, and it is weak in terms of
> preventing abuse.

Agreed.



> Thus it's easy for a vendor having monopoly control or
> very large market share to take advantage of
> extensions, the more the merrier. They would likely
> not violate ODF as long as they avoid the ODF
> restricted XML (ie, avoid the ODF-defined namespaces).

I've proposed a way of addressing this, based on WP processing
http://sites.google.com/a/odfiic.org/tc/Home/odf-interoperability-and-conformance#TOC-Extensions-to-the-ODF-Standard.

ODF allows extensions, take it up with the main TC if you don't like
it. Sun might object.
Hence we must deal with them in some way.


Two aspects.

1. In testing for conformance, we need to recognise and report extensions.
2. Brings up a further point which I've tried to address. What to do
when a conformance test fails?
General testing philosophy offers:
Report the failure and continue.
Halt testing.

It also brings in test interdependencies. If Test A fails (your
example of binary content, could fail an XML validation).
then Test B may not be run.

Also not addressed.

regards

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