Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Profiles: suggested use-cases

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Sander Marechal <s.marechal@jejik.com> wrote:
> marbux wrote:
> Have you read my use-cases? Read the second one again, then read CDRF
> again. There's nothing like it in the CDRF spec. As Simon and other
> people have already pointed out to you, there's nothing in CDRF that
> tells a subset application how to deal with a document from the
> superset. It only tells superset applications how to deal with the
> subset (and that's in my first use-case).

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this thread. I agree that CDRF
does not deal with your second use case and that is a weakness that
needs to be addressed. I've already proposed in another thread, that
CDRF be supplemented with a compatibility framework for the less
featureful apps to process markup they don't support.

There is a basic compatibility framework for this already in the ODF
spec, in the conformance section. But it won't make a lot of sense to
you unless you realize that ODF was developed using the RFC 2119 modal
definition of "may" that imposes two mandatory interoperability
requirements that directly read on the interop between less and more
featureful apps. The RFC 2119 definitions got toggled off at JTC 1
without any effort to repair the damage to the spec.

It isn't the only way a compatibility framework could be created, but
it's the way that is most compatible with the existing standard. I
haven't thought through how that particular framework might mesh with
CDRF. But off the top of my head it seems like it might work if the
compatibility framework was part of the core profile.

Best regards,

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux)


-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>