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] TC formation proposal.

Peter Dolding wrote:
> Please pardon my 99 but I think we need it in there.  If the document
> become unreadable to the people doing the testing and producing the
> reports it becomes just another nightmare document.   Simpler the
> document more likely it can be translated to other languages as need
> and keep its meaning.
> 12.* Creation of central lists of documented and non documented
> extensions to ODF found that are not part of the standard.  Until
> equal is provided by the ODF standard body.
> 13.* Implementer usable testing systems.(Complete Test of Standard)
> 14.* End User Standard Conformance Verification.(Acid Tests)
> 99.*  Off the Street Human Readable Charter.

some thoughts:
- I know there was discussion of this central registry.  But I don't 
recall there being a consensus view that this should be in the 
document...  Then again, I've been in "skim" mode for the past week or 
so wrt this list.. :)  If a consensus was reached, then I'll remove this 
comment.  Peter, I see you as the "sponsor" for this idea, so no 
offense, but I'd rather hear of the consensus view from someone else.. :)

- your section 13 contradicts section 1c - scope of work.  Specifically 
the phrase "The TC will not produce such software."  If by "systems" you 
mean a set of documents/guides for implementing testing, then I'd tend 
to be in agreement.  But that needs to be spelled out if sect 13 stays - 
but it looks like this type of "systems" is defined by the rest of the 
document anyways, so sect 13 seems redundant.

- sections 13 and 14 are close to suggesting HOW the TC will operate, 
rather than suggesting guidelines for achieving it's goal.  I think we 
could leave out both of these items, yet still have them encompassed - 
if/when the TC decides they need them.  I'm thinking about the early 
conversations here, regarding not putting specific limits (to how the TC 
may meet it's goals) into the charter.

- Section 99 should NOT be in the definition of the TC charter.  That is 
covered by the FAQ deliverable, in my view.

Regarding the rest of Dave's original document:

section 1f - the audience designator of "Implementors" is used twice, 
with different meanings.  This will lead to confusion.  May I suggest 
the term "distributors" for the first instance?

My thoughts...


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