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

["David Gerard" <dgerard@gmail.com>]

2008/7/1  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> "David Gerard" <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote on 07/01/2008 03:26:10 AM:
>> 2008/7/1  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:

>> > I'm aware of this behavior in the past.  In fact through the 1980's and
>> > 1990's almost all word processors relied on document formats that were
>> > proprietary and mostly undocumented.  However, I am not aware of this
>> > being
>> > a problem with ODF applications today.  Maybe someone can point me to an
>> > example of where this is a problem?

>> That's like saying "I am unaware of ODF mail clients today that
>> encourage automatic execution of data as code, so there's no reason to
>> discourage it." Surely it's inherently problematic behaviour and its
>> direct encouragement of failure of interoperability has been
>> explained. Is there any actual useful reason to encourage it, thus
>> constructing a loophole the size of an eight-lane freeway tunnel?

> I guess that comes down to the purpose of the TC.  If the purpose of the TC
> is to improve ODF interoperability, then I think that documenting,
> publicizing and enforcing guidelines that no one is breaking would be low
> priority on our list.  Improving interoperability needs to start from
> evaluating what causes interoperability problems now, today, and providing
> solutions to those problems.


I do see what you mean. It just strikes me as the sort of tempting bad
idea that lazy coders would think was a good idea - because they have
in so many other document formats, turning them effectively into mush
- there's lots of examples in ISO formats, where vendor versions of
the "interoperable" standardised format aren't in practice because all
the vendors put so much stuff in an extension. CGM (ISO 8632) is one
appalling example.


> I'm assuming that, like any other project, we have limited volunteers and
> limited time, and that we need to prioritize our work so we accomplish the
> most for our goals with the resources that we have.


There is that, of course :-)


- d.