Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] My perspective. display perferct?

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/7/1  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
>
> "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 07/01/2008 10:16:28 AM:
>
>> 2008/7/1  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:

>> > I would not put a restriction in the charter against such a deliverable.
>> >  But I'd agree that we have no basis for including in such a deliverable
>> > at
>> > present.
>> >
>> > I think we will want the charter will be written broadly enough to cover
>> > current and future versions of ODF.

>> -10
>>
>> Absolutely disagree. If you want to scope the TC work for the next 123
>> versions of ODF, then ..... get IBM to do it.
>>
>
> No one suggested the next 123 versions of ODF.

It's there. 'current and future versions of ODF' How many would you
like that to include?

That's my objection.



>> That is not workable at all.
>>
>> The TC needs something tangible to work with.
>> If future versions of ODF change then the TC will need re-chartering to
>> cater for that.
>>
>
> We can not recharter to broaden scope.  That would require creating a new
> TC.  OASIS rules.

I'm sorry. In which case I'd like the TC to be rechartered to work 'the next'
version of ODF, as and when it is an Oasis standard and not before.


>
> Remember, you were suggesting a very tangible restriction, that would have
> restricted us from following through on someone else's proposed deliverable,
> namely a web profile.

No. I never mentioned profiles.
I caveated it to 'pixel perfect' as per previous discussions on this list.



>
>> Otherwise they have an open ended ticket guaranteed  to fail.
>
> So, are you saying that if I don't put in exactly the words that you
> specify, that we are guaranteed to fail?

No. I am objecting to scoping the TC to work on any and all versions
of ODF ad infinitum  into the future.



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk