Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Profiles

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/7/29 Peter Dolding <oiaohm@gmail.com>:

> I see this dividing as more negative than good.
>
> Sections in the main standard fine.  Where the sections have to be
> compatible with everything else in the standard.
>
> When you break it completely off to its own free will like w3c and
> done many times over you need bigger and bigger processing engines to
> handle the differences between them.

I don't read the W3C document like that Peter. There's a pretty picture
of lots of bits making up a whole (the standard). No reason ODF
shouldn't stay as a single document and recognise classes of use
as hinted at? I think it's fact, whether the main TC recognise it or not.



>
> The logic is how to make a mess.  Remember XHTML is a profile off HTML itself.

Beg to differ. XHTML 1.0 was a re-write of html in XML.


>
> This path has to be followed with massive care.   Better to reject it
> and be wrong then take it and have the standard fragment into a bigger
> and harder to process mess.

Agreed. The ideas seem to me to quite usable.


>
> Opengl ES what is a sub profile of Opengl it has to be what is in the
> main opengl standard.

Thats in the definition? E.g.
A profile is a subset of the technology that supports a particular
functional objective

So a profile could be ODF on disk. Stop. ID all the spec paras that
address this (and no more)
and these become the profile? Simplistic, but I could see that working.

>  This has kept opengl clean.  W3C models should
> be avoided since it has proven its self as a mess maker.

So the lessons are there to be learned. Don't call up this document,
just take the ideas from it and use them for ODF.


regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk