[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [opendocument-users] simple OO.org document goes awry in MS Office 2007 w/SP2 - what went wrong?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:03 PM, <email@example.com> wrote: > marbux <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 06/16/2009 01:16:31 PM: > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:37 AM, <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> So I understand it, are you saying that every bug report I or anyone >> else sends you on an interop failure between Lotus Symphony and other >> ODF implementations will result in you promptly submitting a TC >> proposal to fix the relevant spec(s) with as many mandatory interop >> requirements as are needed to remove the relevant ambiguity if the >> failure is due to an ambiguity or other flaw in the spec, Rob? And >> that you'll shepherd that proposal through the TC and implement the >> fix? >> > > If you find an interop bug, then you can certainly submit a defect report > online at the support forums at http://symphony.lotus.com > > Of course, those with a support contract will get a more rapid response. > But if you write up a defect report, preferably with an example file, then > it will certainly be looked at. That doesn't answer what I asked, Rob. Take another swing at it, please? > As for the ODF Plugfest, we tested a number of multi-vendor interop > scenarios, found a few bugs, but almost all of them were application > errors. I still need to write up the details on the wiki (we were having > network connectivity problems), but all the issues we found were traced to > their causes and the only ones that I noticed that were due to issues in > the standard were issues that we already knew about and have already fixed > in ODF 1.2. Given the grossly under-specified state of the specs in regard to interoperability requirements, including the latest ODF 1.2 draft, I find that a rather incredible statement, Rob. > In any case, you should not expect the ODF TC to take raw customer interop > bug reports any more than you would expect the FCC to answer a call from a > consumer with a broken radio. You need to talk to your vendor first. You're talking past what I wrote on the subject, Rob, rather than addressing its merits. I expect that from politicians and public relations flacks but not from the co-chair of the ODF TC. Also, I happen to know that the FCC actively solicits consumer reports of radios that cause signal interference, which roughly equates to ODF interoperability failures. Interference breaks the interoperability of the assigned radio spectrum frequencies. So I don't think your metaphor helps your position at all. Best regards, Paul -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>