Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] "Strictly conforming" is not related to "interoperable"

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

> 
> My concern is the use of terms like "strictly conforming"
within a 
> context to imply interoperability when in fact the two are quite 
> unrelated, at least as "strictly conforming" for ODF is
defined 
> today (which would be analogous to the C definition of strictly 
> conforming, which was reasoned above as having nothing to do with
> the ability of two C programs to *interoperate* at any level whatsoever).
> 

An important concept is "allowed range of variability"
that a standard allows implementations.  You might think, why have
any variability at all?  Why not require that all implementations
of a standard be precisely defined, with no allowed variability?  The
reason typically is that 1) It would cost too much for implementors (and
eventually consumers) and 2) It is not needed.

Take for example light bulbs.  These, in the
US at least, are defined by a national standard that specifies bulb size,
threading, axis of thread to the bulb, etc.  But these are all specified
with certain a tolerance, +/- 1% or something like that.  Why?  Because
the cost to manufacture light bulbs with greater precision than this would
drive up the cost.  And with the specified tolerance, interoperability
is good enough. 

You see similar trade-offs in C/C++.  What size
is an integer?  It is implementation defined.  Now the standard
could have defined that.  Java certainly did.  But it was decided
to allow this range of variability because the cost (in run time performance
and storage) of mandating non-native integer sizes was too great.

So with ODF, what is the rang of variability?  There
is the variability explicitly allowed by the standard itself, the things
that are optional, the things that are implementation defined.  And
then there are the extensions.

Strictly conforming disallows the extensions.  So
it does reduce the range of variability.  But it doesn't eliminate
it.  So I think there is a relationship there, but not one which in
itself guarantees interoperability. 

-Rob