Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Value and danger of extensions

["Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com>]

People should not be complaining about having there not documented
keys nuked either.   As the test of conformance we have no real valid
way to test for them allowing for when they have to be deleted.
Neither do applications like KOffice or OpenOffice so they are siding
on the safe side delete anything they don't know.  If we delete
harmless keys should do no bad.

The should maintain not documented keys and extensions is basically
unworkable trash in the standard due to without documentation you
don't know when they key or extensions should be deleted to keep
constant layout across implementations.   This is leading to bad blood
between implementers accusing each other of intentionally deleting the
others keys.  They really have no option in the matter.   As well as
being a breach of the TC charter.   We are to conform conformance to
standard and foster compatibility between implementations.    Its the
breach of the second half we cannot confirm 100 percent compatibility
between implementations with undocumented bits threw some means.

Its not our job to fix up these messes as it needs to be bounced back
to standard body for fixing asp.

We need central reporting so we can test it.   We need central
reporting so applications can know what keys are active keys what keys
are inactive just data storage keys same with extensions.   As well as
knowing when they should delete the keys or extensions because its
going to cause a rendering error.

Or we need all extensions and added keys defined clearly by the
standard as 100 percent inactive in document production.   Sorry there
is no middle ground if we want to avoid fights between implementers.
Its been the W3C down fall.  Fighting implementers does no one any
good.

The line say application report to user about there existence is
unworkable too since the conforming application ends up looking worse
than the non conforming ones.

Peter Dolding