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 lookingthe same

marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 06/20/2008 12:43:46 PM:

> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:50 AM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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 limitationsregarding
> > profiles into the charter.
> Rob, I think everything this meeting does could be dramatically
> simplifed if we can achieve consensus that the interoperable
> implementation of the profiles to be developed is the goal.

And why do you think this subject should be dramatically simplified?  The question of interoperability is not simple.  It is not as black and white as you portray it.  And it certainly isn't the case of "Do it my way or you are doomed to fail".

> My principle reasons for suggesting the achievement of consensus on
> that goal are that: [i] it is impossible to achieve profiles that may
> be implemented in an interoperable way without breaking compatibility
> with the ODF standard because of the mountain of application
> dependencies in the ODF standard including the near total developer
> discretion discretion bestowed by its conformance section;

I disagree with the truth of this assertion.   A simple counter-example.  HTML does not have a pixel-perfect layout model, but there are W3C profiles such as HTML Basic that improve interoperability in that domain.

> [ii] if the
> goal is profiles that are both compatible with the ODF standard and
> enable interoperability among different IT systems, the proposed TC
> would have only an advisory role in its profile and conformity
> assessment procedures that would have to be adopted by the ODF TC and
> incorporated into the ODF standard; and [iii] the proper place for an
> advisory committee to the ODF TC is a subcommittee of that TC, not a
> new TC.

I don't see what the ODF TC has to do with conformity assessment methodology.  The proposed TC is fully capable of creating this document, based on existing ODF standards.  Remember, when we are dealing with existing versions of the ODF standard, not even the ODF TC can change the text.

> We need a decision on whether the goal is" [i[ to create profiles that
> break compatibility with ODF by enabling interoperable
> implementations of the profiles, creating conformity requirements
> necessary to achieve that interoperability; and creating conformity
> assessment procedures for those conformity requirements; or  [ii] to
> do such work in a way that maintains compatibility with the ODF
> standard, which would require substantial changes in the ODF
> standard.and its implementations.

These are not the only choices, Paul.  I believe profiles can be used to improve interoperability, and do so in a way which is compatible with the ODF standard.


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