[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Deliverable: odf-diff?
2008/6/20 Hurley, Garry (L&I - OIT) <email@example.com>: >> I'm still not clear on your definition/interpretation of 'different'. > > Functionally equivalent? The only things that can differ are things that > the spec implies can be different? I was hoping that my examples would > make clear what I meant with "different". > > ******* > More or less, I agree with this statement, Sander. I think the spec should tell us how to represent a line, perhaps, but the actual drawing should be left to the graphics program. The spec should tell the programmer how to read the specification file. For example, "a rectangle is identified by the top, left corner, a width, and a height" would be written as: > <object:rectangle start:x="200" start:y="10" width="75" height="150" /> (as a badly written XML example). This is a huge grey area. Some things like this would be simple. How far do you go down the 'how to do it' line is the greyness. Simple fact. ODF doesn't say anything about rendition. **if** in scope, this is an area that the TC could review to find some median path such that Sanders checks wouldn't be necessary (or would be very easy to do). > Example 2: > Both document A and B have it's second word bolded. The bold style is an > automatically generated style. In doc A the style name is "foo" and in > doc B the style name is "bar". But both "foo" and "bar" describe the > exact same thing (e.g. Default + some fo:font-weight). They are the same > and ODF-diff should say nothing. > ******* > I disagree with your conclusion here Sander. First of all, if both are to be compliant to the same standard, that actually implies that the style name should be the same. I disgree with this position Garry. Someone <shouts>Who are you to tell me to use style A over style B</shouts> The easier one is some lady in China. 'bold' as a style name won't mean much to her. Fact. I can call my styles anything I want. foo and bar doing the same thing is what Sander is losing sleep over. (I personally think styles are way too loosely specified and need cleaning up). > ******* > Sander, > > I am reluctant to assign the role of developer to the TC in addition to approving the standards. > In other words, let's just ask the TC to spec out a test tool, and let the development to developers who do not represent the 'big three' out there. > Third, since we have separated the test tool from the software being evaluated, the tool becomes harder to manipulate (like programming the application so that it passes the test, but not everything documents do passes the standards). Fourth, it quiets insistence that the TC is being one-sided in its approach and ignoring interoperability. No problem with that. +1 to the 'leave it to the geeks' (whatever source they are from ) How would you define the deliverable? A tool that compares two apps with the same (ODF) goal. E.g. two word processors. Unless we can define it better than that I'd vote against it being a deliverable? I can (roughly) see what Sander wants, but I wouldn't take on a contract to write it. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk