Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Proposed Use case -- Interoperability in vertical and horizontal ODF markets

["Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:42 PM, marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Simon Calderson <caldersons@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am on occasion guilty of error. When error is called to my
>>> attention, I retract or amend my prior statement.
>>
>> Ok, good.
>>
>>> > Your use case is being discussed,
>>>
>>> Neither its technical nor its legal merit has been discussed thus far
>>> by anyone but me.
>>
>> This is incorrect. The legal merits have been discussed and noted as out-of-scope by correspondents, including myself and OASIS's own lawyer. You are free to disagree with that, but *they have been discussed*.
>>
> I would appreciate a link to the relevant discussion because because
> any such argument that my proposals have been out of scope is plainly
> erronenous as a matter of law. You speak of a discussion I have not
> read and in the sea of posts in this meeting, a mere date is
> insufficient identification of a discussion.
>
>>Your use case's technical merits have also been discussed, time and again.
>
> Not in the thread in which I made the use case proposal, this thread,
> other than my own discussion of it.
>
> I have compared your claims to the technical provisions of CDRF on
> numerous occasions (6/20, for example, twice) which you have been
> unable to respond to, others have also examined them (e.g., Sander,
> Dave P). In particular, you have not responded to the basic issue of
> ODF-emitting agents creating content a-priori suitable for a
> sub-profile conforming application..
>
> That is too vague to respond to, but it smells like an argument that
> the broken ODF tail must wag the OIIC profiles dog.  Any profile work
> done on this TC must satisfy the legal and technical requirements for
> a standard. ODF itself does not satisfy such requirements. Any profile
> work on this TC must break compatibility with ODF. This goes to the
> very issue of whether a new TC to do the profile-related work is
> legally appropriate. If the OIIC TC's profile-related work does not
> break compatibility with the existing ODF standard, then the only
> proper place for such work is the ODF TC or a subcomittee thereof.

Please Stop.   So far you have not presented any grounds to protect the section.

You are keeping on fighting  a fools argument.   Just because its in
Standard a TC does not have to protect it if that section goes against
is major goal.  Major goal is compatibility between programs.

So far you have not once presented anything to grant a save from it
being classed a removable section for all testing.

If anything what we can see that section can and has been abused
producing ODF docs of lower compatibility with other ODF programs.
This is completely against the main goal of the TC.

Present a true case why we should not send that section to doomed
stack due to causing compatibility problems.

You have not produced a valid technical case to save it.  So we have
to presume you don't have one.   Being in standard alone does not mean
TC have to protect something if that something is damaging to
compatibility.  So far the section you are trying to get enforcement
on is classed a damaging.   Something with MUST PRESERVE on means
nothing to a TC testing standard.   Something with MUST BE THERE does
mean something.   MUST PRESERVE just mean it could be there and it
might not be either.  TC is perfectly in right classing it as no
existent and not checking for the MUST PRESERVE if its goes against TC
main goal.

Can you or Can YOU NOT make it important for compatibility between
applications and will not produce other compatibility problems?

That is the line you need to answer.   If you cannot leave it be and
live with it.

Peter Dolding