OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

[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

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> If there is consensus to make CDRF based profiles, then we would add that to
> the list of deliverables.  If there was consensus to require only CDRF based
> profiles, then we would add that restriction to the scope statement.  But
> I'm not hearing consensus on either of those.
> What I'm hearing is that some people think that CDRF is interesting and may
> be applicable, but are convinced.  We could handle this by doing nothing
> until such time as there is a consensus to commit to that work or to
> restrict the TC in that way.
> Another possibility is to add a deliverable that calls for the creation of a
> report on the applicability of CDRF to ODF profiles.  Maybe there is
> consensus that this should be formally studied?  Maybe Paul wants to
> contribute a draft of this report to the TC?

Rob, I already posted about this somewhere. I'd be willing to do a
draft if we can first resolve two critical issues:

1. Whether there is consensus that one common goal -- regardless of
which TC the work occurs on -- is the creation of profiles,
conformance requirements necessary for their round-trip interoperable
implementation by different IT systems, and conformity assessment
procedures for those implementations.

2. If so, whether compatibility with the ODF standard is a requirement .

This is not intended to exclude any other deliverables proposed thus
far. The reason I wish these issues to be decided before I agree to
create a draft is as follows:

A. I don't want to waste my time if there is no consensus on item 1.

B. As a technical matter, it is impossible to create such deliverables
and maintain compatibility with the existing ODF standard. If
compatibility with the ODF standard is a requirement then the ODF
standard has to change because it full to the brim with application
dependencies. E.g., virtually all of those "may" and "should" clauses
mask hard-coded programming decisions that remain unspecified.  If the
interoperable compatibility of the profiles' implementations is the
goal, the deliverables mentioned above should be developed in a
subcommittee of the ODF TC, not in this proposed TC, because the ODF
standard must bend to interoperability fundamentals rather than
developing a new standard that is incompatible with ODF.

C. I've really struggled with it, but I see no hope for consensus if
we can't get those two issues resolved first and I do not want  to
waste my time if we can't resolve those issues.

Best personal regards,


> Well, I proposed the new TC, so I clearly think it is needed.
> -Rob

Universal Interoperability Council

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]