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

marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 06/22/2008 10:02:41 AM:

> I would rather see Rob respond to the technical merits of what I
> proposed rather than just asking for a check signed in blank. I'm way
> behind on reading the email, but I have yet to see an objection to my
> CDRF proposal that addresses its technical merit. I haven't seen
> anything from Rob yet that even implies that round-trip interop is a
> goal we can agree on. Rob seems to be working very hard to avoid
> discussing the technical merit of any proposal that puts interop on
> the list of deliverables. He seems to want a check signed in blank for
> the new TC without interop anywhere in the charter other than in the
> name of the TC.
> Until we get agreement that interop goes on the list of deliverables
> and Rob starts talking about the technical  merits of interop
> proposals, I don't think we're going to make any progress. .

Paul, I fail to see any technical content to your proposal.  They appear to be merely defining the problem away without doing anything to actually help implementors improve interoperability.  In particular, using CDRF's conformance language would merely add requirements that certain forms of document exchange be have certain interoperability guarantees.  But merely adding a requirement that says "Thou shalt be interoperable" does not in itself accomplish anything. We would still be in the exact same boat.  I think you misperceive the nature of interoperability, and the practical problems and equally practical solutions that are needed to move us forward.  

I'm looking to form an ODF IIC TC in order to develop the kinds of practical tools needed by ODF implementors (and others) to improve conformance of  ODF documents and applications, and to improve interoperability among them.  Those who are interested in this task will join in this effort, and those who are not will ignore it.  I see no sense in turning this into an "us versus them" battle.  It is only "us" here.  Those who participate in the effort already want to see interoperability improvements, so let's concentrate on that rather than the unnecessary task of convincing them that such efforts are necessary.

I know you desperately want interoperability improvements.  But at times you remind me of a drowning swimming, grabbing and clinging to his rescuer, risking the demise of both. I think we want the same things here, Paul.  We already have the major vendors involved.  Trying to turn this into a stick to be used against "big vendors" will only backfire and ensure that the effort never occurs.


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