Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Deliverable: odf-diff?

[Sander Marechal <sander.marechal@tribal-im.com>]

Dave Pawson wrote:
>> ******* 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.

I have a better idea: Perhaps the TC can come up with a spec to 
"normalize" an ODF document? Then the geeks can use a standard XML diff 
tool (or maybe even plain text diff) to spot differences between the 
normalized version.

Such normalization tools already exist for e.g. RelaxNG schemes. It's 
very hard to compare to RelaxNG schemes and tell if they're the same. 
But if you normalize both RelaxNG schemes, you can use any standard diff 
tool to see the differences.

-- 
Sander Marechal