[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 Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Radoslav Dejanović <radoslav.dejanovic@opsus.hr> wrote: > robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > >> Putting aside the question of achievability (or not) of "pixel >> perfection", is there anyone here that doubts the proposition that the >> proposed TC can and should improve the interoperability of rendered >> output of ODF applications? >> >> Put differently, is there anyone who would refuse improvement if it is >> not perfection? Too vague to respond to. My study of the fundamental requirements for competition in the market defined by a standard is that no implementation should have its round-trip interoperability impaired by the lack of specifity in a standard, without need to reverse engineer other implemenations, negotiate profiles between indvidual developers, file lawsuits for disclosure of specs, etc. Standards are supposed to be agreements to end feature wars and to refocus R&D expense on lowering the costs of production, providing better customer service, etc., in a stable market. This does not mean that folks can't engage in feature wars, but it does mean that conformant status cannot be bestowed on the embraced and extended versions. In the context of document format standards, my reading of the law is that vendors are free to embrace and extend standards (so long as other law doesn't get in the way, such as a monopolist extinguishing standards through their embrace and extension. But if they wish to claim conformance, their editor implementations must remain capable of reading and writing to the unextended version of the standard. ODF required this in OASIS ODF 1.0. But every interop requirement in the spec got toggled off by a careless JTC 1 substitution of RFC 2119 requirements keyword definitions to ISO/IEC Guidelines defintions. So I can agree that perfection is neither possible nor required by law, but I cannot agree that there is no threshold requirement in the degree of interop improvement. A standard must place all competitors on an equal footing and the formats they create must be substitutable in the market. A highly useful synthesis of the law governing the leveling of the competitive playing field in a market defined by a standard and both developer requirements is found in ISO/IEC/JTC 1 Directives: "For the purpose of this policy statement, interoperability is understood to be the ability of two or more IT systems to exchange information at one or more standardised interfaces and to make mutual use of the information that has been exchanged. An IT system is a set of IT resources providing services at one or more interfaces. ... "Standards designed to facilitate interoperability need to specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability. Complexity and the number of options should be kept to a minimum and the implementability of the standards should be demonstrable." <http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/2489/186491/186605/AnnexI.html>. That is a fair summary of the applicable law, developer requirements, and user requirements. With only slight modification to make clear to more people what is only obvious to a lawyer or other grammarian, I've asked Rob whether he can agree to something very similar being added to the charter as being applicable to all deliverables >> >> If not, let's include a goal of improving that area in the charter. The >> fact that perfection is not possible should not prevent us from doing >> what is doable. Again, "improving" is not specfic enough for me. > I might be wrong here, but I suppose that interoperability is about > having information sent from point A to point B in such a way that it > does not degrade in the process? > No. You describe intraoperability as opposed to interoperability, a 1-way trip. Interoperability imports the notion of round-tripping. See e.g., the JTC 1 definition quoted above ("mutal use)". A definition of interoperability that has no relevant difference from that defined by JTC 1 Directives above was held in the case of Commission v. Microsoft to exclude 1-way interoperability and to require 2-way interoperability. The Court also held that the degree of specficity in the disclosures of Microsoft interop specs was that necessary to put competitors on an "equal footing" with Microsoft's own software in regard to interoperability. Even 2-way interoperability does not fully capture the range of interoperability that must be enabled by a standard's specification of conformity requirements essential to achieve interoperability. A conformant implementation of a lawful standard must be able to interoperate with any and all other conformant implementations. So we are not only concerned with the one-way trip A > B. We are also concerned with A <> B <> C <> D, etc. I am aware of no common term for the interoperability that involves more than the round-trip between two applications. I have a personal preference for using "business process interop" as the shorthand term. E.g., in automated business processes, the next app to process the data can be unpredictable. The sequence might be any variation of A <> B <> C <> D, etc. ordering. The notion here is that any app that conforms to a standard must be able to correctly process documents generated by any other conformant app. If this cannot be done, it is the standard that is defective, not the apps. And with ODF (and with OOXML for that matter), we face the problem of repairing a defective standard. > In that case, and this is about something called Open Document Format, > I'd say that while retaining perfect rendering is crucial for things > like images, I do not think that it does matter for, say, a spreadsheet > or a letter to retain perfect alignment or flawless table boundaries, as > long as important data - text, numbers, formula, etc. If I get a letter > from my bank, I do want to be sure that the numbers are correct, I don't > really care whether my office program would render it slightly more to > the left than the original document written on other software. > > Rendering documents should be of primary concern to software developers, > and let them handle that, it's their job. I disagree to the extent that there are market requirements for documents that do not define rendering, market requirements for documents that require pixel perfect replication, and a continuum of market requirements in between. This is only my personal opinion, but I see pixel perfect replication as being adequately handled by the existing PDF international standards. I suggest that we focus on two parallel branches of profiles, one for the folks more concerned about automated parsing, extraction, transformation, and document assemly, and serialization of the asembled document for rendering as desired. Let's call this the "business process branch" of profiles for now. The second branch of profiles would focus on improved uniformity in rendering. Let's call that the "better rendering" branch of profiles. If we take that approach, we can serve what I believe to be a happy medium of a range of market requirements, particularly if on each paralleling profile, the business process profile is defined before defining the corresponding profile in the better rendering branch. If we begin from a core profile of features that must be supported by all conformant implementations, we can then branch from there to the two parallel branches of successively more featureful profiles. And if we do the business process profile first at each layer, we can also define the rules as we go for round-tripping of documents between the two branches. I have been unable to identify any other method of cleaning up the ODF interop mess than by first defining a core profile and working our way out to progressively supersetting profiles. We've got to get the fundamentals right and implemented in the apps before we can even make rational decisions about any more complex profile. Taking this incremental approach also presents the developers with manageable steps in implementing the profiles. E.g., if we profiled the entire spec before beginning and woked our way inward, all we would do is to document what is already non-interoperable and both the standard and the implementations would have moved on long before we completed the profile work. But we really do need first to achieve consensus on interop being the goal and then deciding whether compatibility with the existing standard is a requirement. If it's the latter, then the ODF standard must be rewritten and only the ODF TC can do that. To paraphrase, I ask whether the goal is ODEF or ODF. Which is the tail and which is the dog? . Best regards, Paul E. Merrelll, 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]