[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] PROPOSAL -- Name change for proposed TC
2008/6/19 marbux <marbux@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: >> Telling Sun/IBM/FOSS guys how to do their job is >> stupid and a waste of time. > > I agree. But I see some value in alerting folks who fell for the ODF > Interop bees wax. Compliance testing can show up anomolies. > I'm going to stick around on this list and continue offering > constructive proposals. History teaches that they'll get shot down. > But I haven't given up on interop. I've been cussing interop > breakpoints since the punched paper tape days and I'll probably still > be cussing them on the day I die. The big vendors have no solution to > the ODF interop problem. They *are* the ODF interop problem. I moaned like hell at the xslt W3C rec. Full of 'implementation dependent' clauses. We now have a good number of interoperable apps. It can be done. > >> Give them something to test compliance with a workable >> standard (Conformance testing) and they might react positively >> (sidestepping Pauls assertions). > > :-) > > There's stil the problem that when it comes to elements attributes > there's nothing left to test for conformance that isn't already > handled by validation against the schema after all foreign elements > and attributes are removed. Hence my earlier proposal to shift emphasis from compliance to recommendations to the main TC. This would address the para 1.5 issue. > > But that brings to mind that I had a few more thoughts about which is > the definitive version of ODF. As I explained before, that depends on > legal context. But the new thought in that regard is that if one were > to ignore the law and approach the question purely from a practical > standpoint, the definitive version should be OASIS ODF 1.0. ODF was > developed using the RFC 2119 definitions. OASIS ODF 1.0 is the only > version of ODF not obliterated by the switch to ISO/IEC Guidelines > definitiions.The only way you can make any sense out of the standard > is to use the version that uses the RFC 2119 definitions. All other > versions never got the repair required to clean up the mess created by > the switch in the definition of "may." AFAICT may is not normative. I can fail a test against a 'may' clause but I can only issue a warning, not a failure. That keeps it simple. >> Interop responses would be a recommendation back to the main TC. >> Conformance would be a test specification. >> Profiles (the exchange profile is the most interesting one yet Paul) would >> be a bonus. > The barrier I see on what you propose is that the ODF TC would just > ignore it unless the recommendation were accompanied by massive > pressure on them to act on it. Maybe we could take the issue to the > E.U. and see if they're willing to twist the necessary arms? If a long list of recommendations are published with Oasis name and the ODF TC ignore them, I think that could be dealt with. > > I really appreciate your candor, Dave. I don't do bullshit Paul. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]