[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 8:50 AM, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > Sander Marechal <sander.marechal@tribal.nl> wrote on 06/19/2008 01:43:57 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. >> >> The rotten part IMHO is that the CDRF spec actually deals with two >> issues: compound documents and profiles. I don't think the compound >> documents stuff is particularly interesting for ODF or how that part >> would impact ODF, but the bits about the profiles is certainly >> interesting. I'd add a couple other parts of CDRF to your short list and have a suggestion that might resolve concerns about the compound documents parts of CDRF. You have on your list of CDRF key features and I will fl it out just a bit more.: 1. A specification for creating conformant compound document formats; 2. A specification for creating compatible profiles working from a core profile to progressively more featureful profiles. 3. A specification for the interoperable processing of profiled content including round tripping between implementations of less and more featureful profiles. 4. A very key conformance requirement that leaves no discretion for an implementation of a supersetting profile not to be capable of processing each subset profile's content as if the subset profile were the superset profile. Together with the more detailed requirements, we have in sum an interoperability framework that requires not only that implementations of particular profiles be interoperable, but that more featureful implementations must interoperate with implementations of less featureful profiles. As an analogy, one need not replicate the entire range of functionality of OpenOffice. org in order to achieve round-trip interoperability with it. The mobile device editor can round trip documents with OOo with no loss of data. The folks who implement only less featureful profiles can have confidence that their ability to round trip documents with more featureful implementations will not be left behind as more featureful profiles are developed and implemented. One need no longer clone the OOo code base to round-trip documents with OOo without checking documents manually for loss of data. What I really seek here is to pitch the software stack model overboard and replace it with an ecosystem of interoperable apps of varying capabilities. The mega-apps like OOo and Symphony become even more valuable because they in effect become the major document interchange centers in the ecosystem, the place a user can go to process any profiled content. Another huge advantage of this approach is that developers of less featureful apps will have far more incentive to collaborate on development of profiles for the range of features required by their class of app. E.g., an outliner document exchange profile, a web editor document exchange profile, a mobile device editor document exchange profile, etc. If we go in that direction, we set in motion the rising tide that raises all boats equally. And with each new profile, the more featureful apps become more useful to their users. Where developers of less featureful apps have requirements that can not be expressed in any profile, they have huge incentives to get their needed markup added to the next version of a profile and its supersetting profiles. . Everyone involved gets the stability of competing in a market that will not leave them behind. So long as we dp not bestow conformant status on documents that include app-specific extensions, we have DOCUMENT EXHANGE FORMATS. Developers can still innovate and embrace and extend profiles, i.e., innovation is still enabled, but users have the option to write to defined profiles for purposes of document exchange. Sometimes users will wish to write to embraced and extended profiles. Sometimes they will not. But they have the means to round trip documents with any conformant implementation of any profile. In the final analysis, my reasons for wanting this approach has nothing to do with the law. I want a document standard designed for a connected world rather than for an application type from the sneaker net days. I want my outliner to be able not just to talk to my word processor, but for my word processor also to be able to talk to my outliner. I want a two way conversation with the folks who are using those new-fangled mobile devices (that I will never touch myself :-). I want a two-way conversation with a web app editor. I want two-way conversations with every app in the world. I speak as a software user. I want interop just as broad and universal as I can get. I am not against new features. I love new features. But I am frustrated beyond comprhension by the fact that I can't exchange documents in a non lossy way with anyone not using the same application. It is *at least* ten times as frustrating to me because I know beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no technical barrier to to the kind of interop I want for documents. The only barrier is the big vendors' fear of not being able to control their markets. But that fear is completely irrational. Deliver the kind of interop I want based on open standards, and the world will beat its feet to your doors. There will be an explosion of opportunities to commercialize interoperability in a connected world. I speak of economic expansion instead of market control that stunts economic expansion. I speak not only of the explosive kind of commerical growth that HTML brought to the world but the even more explosive growth brought by more and less featureful apps being able to hold 2-way conversations. I fully comprehend that my wildest interop desires are infeasible. But I'm still waiting for that first tiny step of producing implementations of a standard for the interoperable exchange of documents by any office productivity software. Four decades, Rob, since IBM embraced and extended the Teletypesetter ("TTS") telegraphy code to begin the commercialization of automated word processing. The last interoperable word processor I used punched paper tape to unextended TTS and it was electro-mechanical rather than electronic. As to the portions of CDRF that provide rules for creation of compound document formats, an interoperable ODF can be treated as single formats for each application type. The only relevance of the rules for creation of compoound document formats would be for those who wish to combine ODF with other formats. In my view, that does not mean that the problem with the incorrect implementation of three W3C standards in ODF using unique OASIS namespaces need never be addressed. There are severe round-trip transformation problems there that I suspect can only be resolved by going to W3C for development of profiles for the feature range needed in ODF and to get the ODF 3-D stuff into a W3C standard that harmonizes SVG with it. But I see no need to treat ODF at least initially as anything but a single format for each application type. I suspect that the CDRF rules for creating compound document formats may be a helpful guide in addressing the incorrect namespace issue at some later date. But in terms of getting started on the profile work, I see no immediate need for ODF to conform to those rules. E.g., treat ODT as a single format and do the ODF profile work. The rules for creating compound document formats need only relate to the combining of ODF with other formats. >> >> Perhaps there is a way to just use the profiles aspect of CDRF and leave >> out the rest? Would it be easier to achieve consensus on just that part? With the caveat just given, I hope you might instead move closer to compatibiility with the whole of CDRF as the guide. I am certainly willing to consider language that would allow flexibility where it is necessary. E.g., there's a definition of "user agent" incorporated by reference in CDRF that read literally excludes editing implementations from the conformance requirement for round trip interop between implementations of less and more featureful profiles. I certainly could not say that no other adaptations would be required along the way. But I think we might fix that with language requiring the maximum compatibility with CDRF that is feasible. I'm not ready to agree to the specific words I just used to impart the idea, but I'm open to some language that provides needed flexibility but limits the flexibity to that needed. I'm not here to be unreasonable. W3C itself added the "conforming authoring tool" definition to the WICD profiles rather than fixing the problematic definition incorporated by reference in CDRF. CDRF is far more valuable in my mind for its interop conformance requirements including the application behavior specified than it is for its profile development specs. I'd hazard an informed guess that the CDRF interop conformance requirements could be used with other profile development specs. But then we're getting into trying to cobble pieces of other open standards together to create a complete interop framework. I wouldn't want to just gamble that there are other suitable cookbooks out there for creating profiles that are compatible with each other in a manner that enables round-tripping. documents between implementations of less and more featureful profiles. I'm also not wedded to CDRF if someone comes up with a better proposal. But I'm totally against writing a blank check for the proposed TC. I want a mandate for the TC to deliver specs for interoperable implementations of profiles and for interop between implementations of less and more featureful profiles. In other words, I want an identified interop framework in the charter and if anyone knows of a better framework for the purpose, I want time to evaluate it before we specify it instead. Another way of saying what I want is a concrete and detailed work plan to achieve the goal of the best interop achievable. Specifying in the charter harmonization of ODF in the profile work with a specifically-identified existing open standard interop framework should be the goal here, I think. CDRF would also open the door to an eventual profile for transformations to and from the ePub standard just adopted by the global eBook publisher's association. <http://www.openebook.org/> ePub is built on CDRF and if ODF vendors want to participate in that market using their ODF apps, they are going to need to implement CDRF and develop a profile for non-lossy transformations between ODF and EPub. I guess the point here is that CDRF is gaining major traction for non-W3C formats already, W3C has the recognized lead in XML formats, harmonization with an existing standard is no small consideration, and I am not content with leaving the selection of the interop framework up to the TC. Like I said before, I'm still looking for that unmistakable signal that the big ODF vendors have turned a square corner on their ODF interop policies. The signal I want is commitment to CDRF or better in the charter. With CDRF, I think down the line we might think about ODF profiles that correspond to the feature sets of the WICD profiles if implementation of the WICD profiles should gain traction. That would add easy transformations to and from the WICD profiles to the ODF connectivity arsenal. But I also think it's too early to say with confidence that the WICD profiles are going to gain that traction. There's not much in the works in terms of editors that I know of. I think the biggest uptake barrier for the WICD profiles as document exchange formats is that there aren't very many people visibly working on editors for them. Because ODF has lots of editing implementations and huge market share compared to the WICD profiles, I see ODF document exchange profiles based on CDRF with huge potential to become the universal document exchange formats. I'll also point out that specifying CDRF in the charter limits not only Sun and IBM's discretion but also Microsoft's. When Microsoft announced plans for native ODF support in Office, its officials reportedly said that they would provide that support but wouldn't limit the Office features available to the user when creating documents. All the users are supposed to get is a warning that writing to ODF may result in data loss. CDRF removes discretion for that kind of game through its requirement that implementations of a supersetting profle must process any subset profile as it it were the superset profile. I.e., to claim conformance with the ODF profiles using CDRF conformance requirements, Microsoft would be forced in order to claim conformance round trip documents with every subset profile. The compatibility mode and blocking out of features available to the user when conversing with an implementation of a subset profile becomes mandatory. So CDRF also offers a way to force Microsoft to play nice with less featureful apps if it wants to claim conformance with the ODF profiles. CDRF also provides a roadmap for DG Competition to force Microsoft to play nice with the less featureful ODF apps by requiring Microsoft's conformance with CDRF-based ODF profiles. I've seen no sign so far that IBM and Sun have given DG Competition any such roadmap to enforce that would result in non-lossy interop between Office and ODF apps. And the Microsoft officials' statements testify that Microsoft has no goal of achiving non-lossy interop with any ODF app. I talk here of opening up the office productivity software software market to open standards-based universal interop including the interop of less and more featureful apps. I want everyone who implements a profile to play nice with everyone else who implements any of the profiles. I want an end to interop barriers in the office productivity software market and I want the traditional office desktop suite developers to do 2-way conversations with less featureful apps, whether those apps be located on the desktop, the server, mobile devices, or the Web. And I want it to be based on open standards. Four decades is four decades too long to wait for the software industry to treat their users like valued customers rather than victims to be locked in. I want an end to this crap and that's why I want CDRF. I wanted interop 40 years ago and the frustration has just kept building roughly linearly as the number of incompatible apps has mushroomed. As Sam Hiser told Bob Sutor, "give me interop or give me death." With me, making interop happen is a non-negotiable item. The problem just gets harder to solve with every non-interoperable app. CDRF is the only coherent roadmap for solving those problems that I have found and I have looked far and wide. So for me it's CDRF or better in the Charter. I want the TC's hands to be tied to making interop happen. No more excuses. I've heard them all. CDRF or better in the charter. No consensus will be achieved without it. For folks who don't know standards law, consensus means lack of sustained opposition. I doubt that anyone here will dispute that I am capable of sustained opposition. > The proposed TC can certainly reuse parts of existing open standards. ODF > itself does this in many places with MathML, XForms, etc. I think the > proposed TC should, as one of its initial tasks, take a broad look at > profiles and profile conventions from OASIS, W3C, ISO/IEC, etc., and create > an "ODF Profile Requirements" documents that state the TC's agreed-upon way > of writing profiles. Not good enough for me. You ask that I trust the big vendors who created the interop mess. I do not and I have solid grounds for not trusting them. . > In terms of the charter, I'd suggest adding the "ODF Profile Requirements" > report to the list of deliverables. But I think it is premature, not having > done completed the research, to put specific technical limitations regarding > profiles into the charter. I quote from the scope section fo the ODF TC charter: "A standard for office document processing and *interchange* will be of great utility to many users and software companies developing applications, and should be made available as soon as possible." .As part of the Phase 1 work in developing OASIS ODF v. 1.0, the ODF TC Charter identifies the following work item: "establishing a set of 'core' elements and attributes to be supported by all implementations," However, even in OASIS ODF 1.1, we find the following passage in the conformance section: "There are *no rules regarding the elements and attributes that actually have to be supported* by conforming applications, except that applications *should not* use foreign elements and attributes for features defined in the OpenDocument schema. " "Should not" creates no conformance requirement; it is only a recommendation. All elements and attributes in an ODF file can be written in OOXML and it is still a conformant ODF document. To summarize, the ODF TC Charter itself contemplated that OASIS ODF 1.0 itself would be profiled. And Six years later, we are still waiting for those "interchange" formats that "should be made available as soon as possible." Instead of interchange formats, we have total developer freedom to claim conformance for a document where all elements and attributes can be written in any markup language in the world, even in proprietary binary formats. The profile work contemplated for this TC invades the Charter of the ODF TC. There will be no consensus achieved on trusting the big vendors who ignored the very purpose of the ODF TC, an open standard for document interchange formats. No more discretion for abuse of software users. CDRF or better in the charter. I will agree to nothing less. Best regards, Paul -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]