[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, Paul . > > Well, I proposed the new TC, so I clearly think it is needed. > > -Rob -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]