Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Profiles. Attempting a definition.

[Sander Marechal <sander.marechal@tribal-im.com>]

Hurley wrote:
> 2.  Establish a profile standard.  For example, I submit that we
> follow something similar to the rules of normalization in a database,
> in which each successive level of normalization includes the previous
> level(s) plus a new rule or two.  Say we decide that the "basic
> profile" should be strictly compliant with version 1.0 of the ODF
> standard.  Then the 'Alpha' Profile includes the Basic Profile plus a
> nifty little suggestion from Microsoft, two from IBM and four more
> from Sun.  And the 'Beta' Profile includes all of the things in Alpha
> plus ten things from Apple, two more from IBM and four from
> Microsoft. 'Gamma' Profile would include all of 'Beta' plus... well,
> you get the idea.  That said, I would suggest that the most
> interoperable profile be considered the 'Basic' profile, and allow
> vendors to comply at different levels of interoperability with Alpha,
> Beta, Gamma, Delta, etc.  The higher you go, the less likely you are
> going to be completely interoperable, but if you stick to the lower
> levels, you should be more interoperable.  Maybe I have just
> suggested two separate approaches here as for a starting point.  I
> don't know, that may be for the TC to decide.

Isn't this exactly what Marbux was arguing for with CDRF in his long 
posts in his "objection" thread? I.e:

[1] A subprofile only removes elements (or restricts it more) to a base 
profile. It does not add to it.

[2] An application which supports profile Gamma must also support the 
subprofiles Beta, Alpha and Basic (should not be hard to do, since 
there's nothing in those subprofiles that's not in the Gamma profile. 
See [1])

-- 
Sander Marechal