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
- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
- To: oiic-formation-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:00:39 +0200
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.
-Rob
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]