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] Profiles: suggested use-cases

2008/6/22 Sander Marechal <s.marechal@jejik.com>:
> Dave Pawson wrote:
>> My initial reaction is negative Sander. This is too close to
>> a)Direct addition to the specification.
>> b)Very little different to how some may want to treat extensions.
>> You have gone beyond profiles into 'how to process' document variants.
> I'm not sure I quite understand your objection. Could you explain a
> little bit better? It is exactly my point that we describe how profiles
> work in the real world, without nailing down any definition of
> "profiles". Perhaps you can make some suggestions to improve the use-cases.

You suggest an interpretation of a profile (some subset of the schema), but
then go on (too far IMHO) to say what you want an app to do with the profile?
They go beyond the current ODF spec, addressing how an ODF application
should treat some subset of ODF? Hence are an extension to the spec.

>> Other definitions:
>> A profile which describes the use of ODF as an archive format for long
>> term storage of documents.
>> ...
>> A profile which constrains ODF not to have any graphical content, for
>> use with a tactile output device.
> Personally I'd leave it up to the TC to figure out what profiles are
> needed.

+1, hence it's not in the deliverables, just a way of letting the TC
know what we think of as profiles.

> Your profile suggestions sound very useful, but it may not be the best
> way to do profiles.

Which is why you wanted to provide examples of usage?

 Maybe the TC would prefer to create profiles based
> on features instead of usage.

Which is why I suggested them. Yours (without what apps
did with them) were schema subsetting. I believe
use cases provide another view of profiles.

> Or perhaps they want to split ODF into four profiles: "ODF text", "ODF
> spreadsheet", etcetera. In which case my use-cases go out the window,
> because my use-cases are about conformance requirements for
> subprofiles/superset-profiles. If the TC thinks it's better to create
> profiles that are not subsets of other profiles, this doesn't apply (but
> some other use-case may).

Exactly. Don't constrain them to one view of profiles and they include
exclude whatever they want.


Dave Pawson

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