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:
> marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 06/17/2009 02:53:56 PM:
>
>
>> But wait, how are folks who don't have the budget to flit around the
>> globe attending all those plugfests supposed to implement ODF? And
>> what about folks who don't even decide to enter the ODF implementation
>> market until years from now?
>>
>
> One of the proposal coming out of the plugfest was to move to a "virtual
> plugfest" model where implementors can work on interoperability scenarios
> on an ongoing basis.  We're all mindful of the high cost of international
> travel.  That said, the location of the just-completed plugfest was
> central enough to attract participation from many open source ODF
> implementations.

Still does next to nothing for the folks who decide to implement ODF
later or for those who lacked the budget to attend.  Once again, Rob
Weir ducks rather than responding to the merits of what I said.

>> Not. IBM even abstained when the ballot came round on Sun's proposal
>> to allow it to trash xml:id metadata. I never saw a single interop
>> proposal out of IBM during my time on the TC. I suppose that was
>> because IBM never had a single interop failure reported by a customer
>> that was related to the spec's under-specification, yes?
>>
>
> Paul, I've organized and run two multi-vendor interop plugfests and
> participated in a 3rd.  I created the OASIS ODF Interoperability and
> Conformance TC.  I've done quite a lot in this area.  Where you and I
> differ is on how to approach interoperability issues.  You seem to think
> it is an issue with the standard.  I believe, based on many hours looking
> at actual interoperability issues, that in the vast majority of cases it
> is a bug in the implementation.  Not always. but most of the time.  Since
> resources are not infinite, I am putting the emphasis where I think it
> will do the most good.  Of course, others can have their own priorities
> and make their own efforts as they see fit.  I'm not hindering anyone from
> doing anything.

Once again, Rob Weir ducks rather than responding to the merits of what I said.

>> Can't take you seriously, Rob. But if you want an interop bug report
>> to demonstrate just how devoted you are to getting specification
>> interop break points fixed, how about this one:
>>
>
> If you are serious about submitting a defect report, then please submit it
> to the office-comment list.

Rob, I clearly identified my defect report that you respond to as
*your* opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy of reporting interop
failures resulting from spec weaknesses to vendors rather than to the
ODF TC and invited you to prove me wrong by you reporting it to the TC
along with a proposal to fix the relevant spec portions. But now you
tell me to submit the defect report to the TC.

Sounds to me like IBM just flunked that test. Instead of IBM acting on
my interop defect report as you claim it works, you told me to report
it to the ODF TC myself. No IBM report to the TC; no IBM proposal to
fix the spec in relevant regard. Just another "don't bother me with
interop defect reports" message from IBM, which is precisely the hole
I pointed to in your advocacy for interop defect reports going to
vendors rather than to the TC. .The  vendor interop failure reports
and curative proposals to the TC don't happen. And you just provided
further evidence of that. Thanks. :-)

So tell me again why users should report interop failures to vendors
rather than to the TC? You just gutted your own argument.

Best regards,

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

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