Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] PROPOSAL -- Name change for proposed TC

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:11 AM, marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:43 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be a good start. FWIW, when we decided to stop banging our
> heads against the ODF TC's interop stone wall and went public with the
> interop bugs, I was working on a redraft of the conformance section to
> put some teeth into it. I wasn't yet satisfied because I hadn't
> figured out a way to deal with the  definitions switch issue and
> needed some feedback on a technical issue or two, can't remember how
> many. IIRC, it's an odt with three versions, the existing conformance
> section, the revised version, and a diff plus a few short explanatory
> footnotes. I couldn't tackle it with your expertise, but I did put a
> lot of thought and research into it. In other words, it ain't bug
> free. If my memory is right that it's an ODT or if it's in HTML, I
> could stick it up on Google Docs and puit. Is that of interest?

This document is now published as a web page at
<http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddxc4vcm_181dzcw64>.

The portions mentioned where I had remaining technical concerns is
diff paragraphs 10 and 11, which limits the ability of conformant
implementations to store metadata in binary form in foreign elements
and attributes. I stress again that this document has not been fully
debugged.

The document identifies numerous interoperability weaknesses and
application dependencies in the existing ODF conformance section.

Best regards,

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux)

-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>