[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] The importance to users of documents looking the same
I just realized that I left a mental leap unexplained in my discussion of the branching opportunities using the CDRF framework. What I describe assumes that the business process automated document assembly profile for a parallel profile would precede the development of a pixel-perfect profile for the same profile at every profile layer. Each pixel-perfect profile would superset the corresponding business process profile (the subset) with the two branches of profiles kept in synch. Each business process profile would allow its extension to the corresponding picture perfect supersetting profile, but only so long as the implementations of the picture perfect profile were required to retain the ability to write to the business process profile, i.e., to process the business process profile as if it were the superset profile. CDRF, through its incorporation by references of the modal definition of "may" in RFC 2119, also requires that implementations of the subset profile be capable of processing the content of the superset profile even with reduced functionality. This has the effect of requiring the preservation of unrecognized metadata from the superset profile for use on the return trip to the implementation of the supersetting profile. Just one of the many reasons for not reinventing the W3C CDRF wheel on this TC. One really cannot comprehend CDRF without understanding the modal definition of "may" in RFC 2119, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>, which is incorporated by reference in CDRF and was incorporated by reference in OASIS ODF 1.0, but was substituted for the ISO/IEC Guideline definion of "may" by the switch of requirements keyword definitions in ISO/IEC:26300 OpenDocument. It was an interop blunder of monumental proportions. Every interop and compatibility conformance requirement in the ODF specification was toggled off by the editorial change from RFC 2119 definitions to ISO/IEC Guidelines definitions. I want interop. The notion that ISO/IEC standards must use ISO/IEC Guidelines definitions and that that fact is a complete justification for not dealing with the aftermath of the change is an inadequate response for at least three reasons: [i] the switch does not somehow relieve ODF from the ISO/IEC/JTC 1 Directives requirement that international standards must "clearly and unambiguously specify the conformity requirements essential to achieve the interoperability; [ii] I am not convinced that there is insufficient flexibility in the Directives to align ODF with every other XML standard but OOXML that require RFC 2119 definttions; and [iii] nobody seems to be into adhering tightly to JTC 1 Directives anyway, or neither ODF or OOXML would have been adopted as international standards without specifying the conformity requirements essential to achieve the interoperability. Bottom line: interoperability is fundamental in IT standards work both in terms of competition within the market defined by a standard and in terms of user requirements. It also happens to be required by law. Law does not exist in a vacuum. Law is a compendium of practical experience in resolving real world disputes. Law simplifies the negotiation of agreements such as the proposed TC's charter by resolving many disagreements without any need to go to court. All that is required is a commitment by all parties concerned to use the law as a guide in the areas where law clearly and unambiguously resolves a disputed item. Law is not just about lawsuits. Law is also a set of norms for avoiding lawsuits, for resolution of disputes without lawsuits. Some U.S. lawyers see the pinnacle of their careers as arguing cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. I always felt that I did my absolute best work when I was able to resolve a client's problem without litigation. Law is about dispute resolution; not about encouragement of lawsuits. Law does not favor those who wait until they are sued to determine what the applicable law is. Best regards, Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux) -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]