oiic-formation-discuss message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Informative clauses
- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
- To: oiic-formation-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:29:34 -0400
"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
wrote on 06/23/2008 02:07:39 PM:
> 2008/6/23 <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> >
> > "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on
06/23/2008 11:59:17 AM:
>
> >> >> 2.4.2 Base Settings
> >> >>
> >> >> The <config:config-item> element contains
all base settings. The value
> >> >> of the setting is stored in the element.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is (barely) informative.
> >> >> No shall.
> >> >> No may
> >> >> Not marked as informative.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > It defines a schema fragment, so that creates a number
of testable
> >> > provisions that will be subsumed into the schema validation
portion of
> >> > the
> >> > conformance test.
> >> >
>
>
> >> Just count how many assumptions you've made to respond like
that Rob.
> >>
> >> Reading the contents of the standard (and no more) that's
basically
> >> not a testable clause.
> >
> > That clause gives a schema fragment. Of course that is
testable. This is
> > very basic. Please let me know that you see and agree with
that assertion.
> > Otherwise we cannot have a meaningful discussion on this
topic.
>
>
> Then we can't have a meaningful discussion Rob.
>
> There is nothing in the spec that requires a vendor to be conformant
> to that fragment of the schema at that point.
> If, elsewhere, it requires conformance in the round, then fine.
> The spec is littered with ... text like that.
> Unclear, no normative requirements, plain bad spec writing IMHO.
>
> If you want to infer what is not present, don't be surprised when
vendors
> claim compliance by ignoring your output because you have
> put a different interpretation on it to them.
>
> Your compliance tests will be worth nothing.
>
Let me connect the dots for you then, using ODF 1.1.
-----
Section 1.4 "Relax-NG Schema"
"The normative XML Schema for the OpenDocument
format is embedded within this specification. It can be obtained from the
specification document by concatenating all schema fragments contained
in chapters 1 to 16. All schema fragments have a gray background color
and line numbers."
-----
So the schema is declared to be normative. By
using Relax NG we have an ISO-approved formal notation for indicating structural
and content requirements and options for XML. Since 2.4.2 "Base
Settings" is obviously a schema fragment (with gray background color
and line numbers), this is included in the set of normative requirements
defined by the schema.
Also, I think it is a false assumption the a vendor's
main interest here is to claim conformance at the least cost and effort.
They can already do that if they want. I think what ODF vendors
want is to improve interoperability with ODF, to make document exchanges
smoother and more predictable, and in doing so increase customer satisfaction
and the overall value of their applications. In other words, we want
results, not just a token certificate that says we've passed a meaningless
test. Conformance testing is one part of this effort, but not the
only part, and probably not the most interesting part of improving interoperability.
-Rob
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]