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

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Radoslav Dejanoviæ <radoslav.dejanovic@opsus.hr>
wrote on 06/23/2008 05:41:10 AM:

> Dave Pawson wrote:
> 
> > An app that doesn't implement a 'may' clause isn't at fault
> > and should not be penalized for that decision.
> > Hence 'if implemented':
> >   run the test
> >   Display the result (but not as a pass/fail)
> 
> If I understand Shawn correctly, the idea is that a "may"
clause means
> that the application is not obliged to use that rule, but if it does,
> then it must follow the spec.
> 
> In that case, test results would be:
> 
> a) not implemented - the application does not implement that clause
> 
> b) pass/fail - the application does implement that clause, but it
does
> or does not fully follow that clause specification.
> 

There are really multiple levels here.  We must
keep them straight.

First there is the feature level.  Some features
are optional, some are mandatory.  Every ODF document must be valid
to the ODF schema.  This is a mandatory requirement.  But support
for spreadsheet formulas is optional.  For example, if you are writing
a word processor, then spreadsheet formulas would not be implemented.  Similarly,
a very simple spreadsheet might not have charts.

Then there is conformance at the level of a feature.
 If you implement a particular feature, such as the Zip packaging
model, then some things are required and some things are optional.

We can work within this framework in several ways.
 For example, if we define a mobile ODF profile, we can define exactly
what features are required for an implementation to claim conformance with
that profile.  We can also reduce the range of variability at the
feature level.

-Rob