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

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

Only two comments Paul.

2008/6/12 marbux <marbux@gmail.com>:

> You might consider the size of the mess that now has to be cleaned up
> because the 800-pound gorillas never felt that the following
> ISO/IEC/JTC 1 Directives requirement would never stop them from
> getting whatever interoperability they wanted to be designated as
> international standards:
>
> "Standards designed to facilitate interoperability need to specify
> clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are
> essential to achieve the interoperability. Complexity and the number
> of options should be kept to a minimum and the implementability of the
> standards should be demonstrable."

I can make sense of that, as guidance. I've added it to the definitions.
<grin/> You take care of the gorillas.


>

> Sounds tentively workable to me. Another approach that's been talked
> about is working toward the editable document and its PDF being
> packaged in the same container. Pixel perfect, archival, and editable
> rolled into one. It could conceivably simplify the maintenance burden
> of keeping the editable and the archival synchronized, plus fulfill
> the desires of the pixel perfect folk far better than ODF could
> itself. Network bandwidth and drive capacity aren't the barriers they
> used to be.


See the other threads on working towards common sense testable
from 'pixel perfect'. I'd hate to see PDF mandated in ODF simply
for test purposes?
That would put a lot of strain on implementors where I don't think it's
necessary?


regards



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