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] Proposed Use case -- Interoperability in vertical and horizontal ODF markets

marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Firstly, you're misrepresenting what I said. I said legal discussion of your proposals was out of scope, which it clearly is because no-one here apart from Andy is in a position to give legal advice, including yourself. Where legal advice is required, it is given by OASIS, viz.:


It is not for anyone else on this list to argue legal points or reach legal decisions. Of course, your proposals themselves are not out of scope, to the extent to which they address a potential charter for an interoperability TC for ODF (which they frequently don't).

> >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.

Yes, if we limit our scope to a two-day old discussion of you beating the same horse again, sure, it hasn't been discussed. However, in reality, it has already been discussed previously, which is likely why no-one is addressing the points you raise: because you've raised this canards before.

For example, you stated your use-case as:

    "How may how may(sic) all conformant ODF implementations hold 
    two-way conversations with each other without data loss?"
My emphasis. Back on the 18th June, I had already raised this point to the list:

    "the utility here is being able to say "you don't have to implement all of 
    ODF; you could implement these small parts, and here's how your app 
    can deal with the bits it doesn't know without trashing the document". 
    Surely that's what we want the TC to enable[..]?"


So your use case has in fact been recognized and discussed previously.

The technical merits of your proposal have also been discussed, time 
and again. You said in your e-mail starting this thread:

    "I point out that my CDRF proposal, as elaborated to
    include a compatibility framework, was carefully designed to solve
    that issue [..]"You keep bringing up CDRF, but you ignore all of the basic technical questions that your proposal doesn't address, which have been put directly to you many times, amongst others:

    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00465.html (19th June)
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00538.html (20th June)

I repeat again: CDRF does not address your use-case, it was not designed to do so nor does it in actuality, and indeed the claims you make for it are wild, speculative and do not match the standard as published.

> My use case's technical merits have not been discussed in the thread
> in which I made the proposal.

That's irrelevant since they have already been addressed before and you haven't answered. I'm certainly not going to bother reading further proposals from you: this mailing list is *not* a write-only medium for you. If you start reading and answering, I will then think about spending time looking over your latest propoals.

As you will note, I have specified the precise mails as they are in the record of this mailing list. There are many other such occasions, but I feel starting at the basic points you've missed would not be a bad idea.



Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html

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