[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Summary and Focus?
--- On Thu, 6/19/08, Shawn <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > From: Shawn <email@example.com> > Subject: [oiic-formation-discuss] Summary and Focus? > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008, 4:29 PM > Here is a quick summary of the discussions as I see them: > > - Profiles. We probably want them. Some discussion about > what a > profile is, but the bulk of that will be left to the TC > itself. > - Scope. The scope of the TC is still being refined. (see > notes below > re: focus.) > - Other documents. The W3C CDR/CDRF may be helpful. Some > other > documentation for XML as been suggested (xslt, etc). These > should at > least be noted and passed to the TC as a potential. > - Charter. Some elements of the charter have an initial > draft. > (http://sites.google.com/a/odfiic.org/tc/Home). We need to > find some > words for the remaining parts. I pretty much agree on what you stated for these four items. > In a previous message > (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00452.html), > > I ask for some clarification on the focus of the TC. I > suspect this may > have gotten lost in the clutter, as only Dave has responded > directly. > So I'll reiterate my concerns here. > > Focus. The discussions are meandering in many directions > (not > necessarily a bad thing). But I think the driving focus > for the TC > needs to be determined to help guide those discussions. I think the meandering discussions are helping us to acquire focus. > 1. Are we testing ODF and it's capabilities (with > regards to > conformance, implementation, and interoperability)? No, Shawn. [TM] .. that was a joke. > 2. Are we testing how applications interpret ODF? Something along those lines. > 3. Are we testing how to use ODF to interact with other > formats (OOXML, > CDR, etc.) Rob (that I remember) has stated that he has been approached with those requests. I think that is within scope but of lower priority to cleaning house to some extent so that ODF itself is better. ODF-only/mostly inter-app interop seems to be getting more votes by more people than inter-protocol interop; however, if (eg) marbux and others have contributions to make on interop with other standards, I think that will carry weight. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think marbux may be willing to make contributions to both types of interops if he believes the work will be given a fair shake. I suggest that anyone that has anything to contribute should try and contribute what they can since that should carry weight for the TC work. This is even more true if that person joins the TC. > If we can determine this "focus", the discussion > will be much more > concise and directed (I believe). > > I've expressed my own views in the linked message. So > I'll not > reiterate them at the moment. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00452.html >> b) identify problem areas that need to be brought to the attention of the ODF TC (if that's the right place for changing the ODF standard). I doubt we are here to change the standard itself. There are other TC's for that job. We can merely suggest things to the TC, or we can say "hey, we can't do our job without these changes". I opt for the latter when choosing between these two. The ODF TC would be useful to add misc features, to work on what they have on the table, to make changes that aren't necessarily related to interop and the rest of what this TC is about. I don't know how OASIS works, but in any case, I think there would be voting. In theory then, any TC can do anything. I think, at the minimum, any changes to ODF specifically required to accomplish our goals would be justified (though it may be voted down later on I suppose).