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. display perferct?

--- On Tue, 7/15/08, Bart Hanssens <bart.hanssens@skynet.be> wrote:

> From: Bart Hanssens <bart.hanssens@skynet.be>
> Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] My perspective. display perferct?
> To: "oiic-formation-discuss" <oiic-formation-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 3:03 PM
> Dave Pawson wrote:
> > So markup (the attribute) is 'lost' (dumped)
> by the app, even if you only


> But AFAIK, nothing in the current spec prevents Malware App
> 3000 to do
> this on purpose and still claim to be playing by the
> rules...

Should ODF (or something/someone else?) state as a conformance clause that vendors claiming conformance must allow the results of "official"(?) testing to be published. Otherwise, you are correct, anyone can claim conformance and then specify you cannot test their product. The market might sort that out... maybe.

I think the approach taken with Java is a good one as a way to protect the ODF brand. Instead of within the standard, I guess the requirement would be in the license or maybe ODF should have an official protected trademark(s) usable to specify various levels of conformance/interop in at least a half-trustworthy fashion.

Trademarks have already been mentioned on this list. Is there something in the charter that should support ODF trademarks for testing/conformance? My vote: yes, there should be.


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