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