Re: [opendocument-users] New question (2): Reference implementation?

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 05/17/2009 07:00:36 PM:
>
> I think you have that backwards, Paul.  A reference implementation
> (RI)does not define conformance, and is not referred to in a conformance
> clause.  An RI is a model implementation, open to inspection, that
> implements a standard fully, and conforms to that standard.  I don't think
> you'll find it mentioned in JTC1 Directives because it is not really a
> part of the formal international standardization system.

Thank you for the acknowledgment in that last sentence.

>
> In any case, just because you, or Dave, do not like a conformance clause,
> doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

You're shooting at a straw man there. Dave said, "very little in the way
of requirements against which conformance may be measured," not that
there are no conformity requirements. I agreed with Dave,
incorporating by reference his statement.

There are a lot of things I don't like,
> but they still exist, much to my perpetual annoyance.  In any case, the
> text, as written, has been approved by OASIS twice and by ISO once.

That says nothing about the text's compliance with governing law. The
pertinent question is whether the law has been obeyed, not how many
times the law has been successfully ignored, that is, unless we're
using as criteria what one thinks he can get away with as a substitute
for the law. :-)

We've debated this many times, and it ends with my
> observation that if we took your interpretation of of WTO requirements,
> then there would have no valid tech standards at all today.

The debates also seemingly invariably end without you having cited a
single legal authority to support your position. And even were one to
assume the truth of your premise that no tech standards would survive
my interpretation of what you call "WTO requirements," what the law is
exists independent of how many entities have violated it. E.g.,
jaywalking is a legal offense whether everyone does it or not. Those
who ignore the law do so at their own risk. "Everyone else does it" is
not a defense to prosecution that I've ever seen a judge allow. It
also doesn't fly with most parents when dealing with a misbehaving
child. .

 And then you
> quote from "A Man for All Seasons" and so on, and so on.

The Supreme Court used that passage from A Man for All Seasons to
illustrate the central point of its holding in Tennessee Valley
Authority v. Hill and it is once again squarely on point to your major
argument. The Court's point was that Congress had spoken unambiguously
and their only option was to interpret the law as Congress intended,
despite arguments over the wisdom of the law. So construction of a
nearly-complete major dam was halted to protect the endangered Snail
Darter, notwithstanding a host of arguments in opposition that boiled
down to cost-benefit analyses.

I really wish you'd read that case some day because I think it might
assist you in understanding why arguments such as those you habitually
make when faced with legal citations are irrelevant. TVA v. Hill,
<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/437/153.html>.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, law establishes standards of
conduct for work in standards development organizations. Like any
lawyer, I could build a very long list of laws I think are idiotic.
But that doesn't mean I'd dare to argue in any court that they should
be ignored just because I think they're idiotic. Unfortunately, that's
been the sum and substance of most of your arguments when you've
challenged my view on the governing law, except for the many occasions
when you change the subject instead.

 Why don't we
> just pretend we've already gone through that dance already, agree to
> disagree, and move on to the next topic.

See my last sentence.


Best regards,

Paul

-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>