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] My perspective. Extensions

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Radoslav DejanoviŠ <radoslav.dejanovic@opsus.hr> wrote:
Gordon MacGinitie wrote:

> I urge that the forwarding of unknown features be considered a violation
> of interoperability.

That is a pretty smart method of niping it in the bud. If there isn't a
serious reason to preserve unknown features, I vote for this "violation

What is described is an historic and well-known method of vendor lock-in, i.e. including undocumented features unavailable from otherwise conformal competitors. The point made is to forbid this behavior. Obviously, this behavior is at the heart of non-interoperability between office suite applications today. We would do well to formally address the problem, don't you think?

I suggest  that this group's charter should endorse this concept [forwarding of undocumented and thus unknown features] as a guiding principal for interoperability. May I suggest that our OIIC TC Charter should state something like [wordsmiths definitely encouraged]

Inclusion of an unknown feature breaks interoperability and therefore, if such features are inserted into an ODF document, the result is no longer an ODFdocument. Thus such behavior should [issue a warning to the user | not be done | be flagged as fail | be considered as non-interoperable behavior].

An unknown feature is defined as any content placed into an ODF document by any method without first providing or making known a public and also an unrestricted [able to be used by all without royalty or use restriction] and operable implementation of the method used being publicly and widely available to all users and implementors of ODF.

If this is not part of the ODF standard now [which I suspect but do not know to be the case], then this interoperability concept should be a suggestion for revision to the appropriate TC IMHO. Otherwise we may indeed see lock-in history repeated and any efforts thwarted.

Ben Baston ComputerPro "Serving Computer Users since 1988"

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