[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Caution and Disclaimer on Interoperability
--- On Fri, 6/13/08, jose lorenzo <email@example.com> wrote: > From: jose lorenzo <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Caution and Disclaimer on Interoperability > To: email@example.com > Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 6:20 PM > --- On Thu, 6/12/08, Dave Pawson > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > I flipped through > http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDocument-v1.1-html/OpenDocument-v1.1.html > some, but it would take me some time to learn the details of > relax-ng and to read every word of ODF carefully. > > What I will do is to describe informally an example of a > document that I think would be strictly conformant (again, > I am taking an educational guess), yet would hold a ton of > proprietary material from a single vendor. I'll also > overview the process undertaken by the proprietary app that > made the document as it newly opens and handles same > document. I'll contrast this behavior with what > competing apps would be able to do. .... > Example finished. > > I think this is a pretty important message just > illustrated. I doubt most laypeople, when they talk about > ODF compliance, realize this scenario is possible and > actually quite possibly likely to happen at some point in > the future. > > I think this is a pretty important message. Didn't mean to drag this back up, except to leave a record here (for dave and for others interested). I know I am not offering anything too useful to the tasks before this group.