Re: [opendocument-users] simple OO.org document goes awry in MS Office 2007 w/SP2 - what went wrong?

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> rjelliffe@allette.com.au wrote on 06/17/2009 02:03:28 PM:
>
>>
>> Or you could have a standards process that attempted to prioritize bug
>> fixes over new features. Oh, but that is the route the ODF TC decided
> not
>> to take. It is a bit much to decide to deprioritize bug fixes in a
>> standard, then complain that standards are slow, don't you think? The
>> challenge for committees and their chairs is how to organize themselves
> to
>> prevent death marches, I suppose.
>>
>
> Rick, however you slice it, a user will get their issue addressed faster
> if we fix a bug in an implementation and submit a defect report on the
> standard at the same time, than it will be to submit a defect report, wait
> for it to be addressed in the standard and only then fix your application.

Please point me to all those interop defect reports IBM has filed
against the specification, Rob? I'm apparently suffering a huge memory
loss. Not. And even though we deal with a hypothetical situation
rather than reality, aren't you presupposing that the TC would adopt
the same solution for the problem that you've implemented in your app?
 I can already hear the cries like KDE's that if the spec doesn't
permit a choice between ordered list tuples and ordered list triples
they'll have to write a converter for their legacy documents.

You'd stand on much firmer ground if your company had a history of
concern with specifying the conformity requirements that are essential
to achieve interoperability in the ODF spec. As it stands, your
company pushed very hard to have OOXML rejected as an international
standard because of its under-specification that blocked competitors
from creating interoperable implementations. But when it comes to ODF,
you seem to have no objections to it remaining grossly
under-specified.

Plugfests instead, and from the IBM co-chair of the ODF TC, no less.
The fact that specification of the conformity requirements essential
to achieve interoperability has never found its way onto the TC agenda
in nearly seven years just about says it all, Rob. It's not like
you've never been put on notice of that requirement for all JTC 1
standards that is mandatory absent the express consent of the
Secretaries-General of ISO and IEC.  And it's not like you are unaware
of E.U. eGov insisting that interop be in the document specs rather
than in the apps.

But to heck with what JTC 1 requires and customers demand. Full speed
ahead on yet another ODF specification lacking the conformity
requirements that are essential to achieve interoperability, right,
Rob?

Best regards,

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux)

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