Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] My perspective. Extensions

["Ben Baston" <bbaston@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Craig A. Eddy <tyche@cox.net> wrote:

+1 in general, though I agree that your proposal might need some re-wording ... found one sentence to be worded in a slightly confused way.

Craig
Tyche

Certainly agree - edited myself into a corner, I did! Apologies to all and perhaps this is less confusing. Or not. Again, as an  interoperability concept fundamental to the OICC TC, some variation of the below is humbly suggested:

> Inclusion of an unknown feature breaks interoperability. Therefore, if content implementing an unknown feature is inserted into an ODF document, the result is no longer an ODF document. Such content should [issue a warning to the user? | not be done | be flagged as fail on conformance testing | be considered as non-interoperable behavior | pick one, several, add to list].
>
> An unknown feature is defined as any content placed into an ODF document which is not supportable by a known, unrestricted [able to be used by all without royalty or use restriction], and operable implementation of that method.

As a consequence - to avoid classification as an unknown feature - all unknown extensions to current ODF might be flagged to the user. To not be considered as an unknown feature, that feature should be required to have an explanation - of what's being done and a working example of how it can be done - submitted to OASIS for consideration for inclusion in the ODF standard - and of course thus posted for all to see. Otherwise the unknown feature should be classified as [breaking interoperability | set off alarm bells | insert your wording] and definitely unacceptable.

Simple concept on how to handle extensions and future improvements to ODF - feedback?
-- 
Ben Baston