OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

opendocument-users message

[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 Office2007 w/SP2 - what went wrong?

marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 06/19/2009 07:45:10 AM:

> Hey, Rob, for some reason the Plugfest wiki doesn't seem to provide
> any pointers to the the relevant specification requirements. In fact
> it doesn't even disclose what version(s) of ODF were being tested.
> Makes it seem as though what was being checked was app < > app
> sameness in test results, rather than conformance with the spec and
> whether the spec might be ambiguous in relevant regard.

Of course we were running app<->app scenarios.  That is the point of a 
user scenario.  After all, users don't sit down with a single 
implementation and a a copy of the ODF standard, do they?  This was an 
interoperability plugfest, not a conformance workshop. The goal was to 
find a broader class of defects, including implementation defects, where 
interoperability was broken.

> >
> > Of course we should design tests for the should's as well as the 
> > Most standards have recommendations and they are worth testing,
> Not as part of "conformance" testing, the word you chose for the OIC
> TC Charter. Recommendations can be safely ignored without affecting
> the validity of a claim of conformance.

The TC's name is the OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC. Taking 
notice of the should's is certainly relevant for interoperability.

> Whether you want to instigate plugfests or not, you are the co-chair
> of the ODF TC and that TC's responsibility is to fully specify the
> standard, not to convene plugfests. If your plugfest fever leaves you
> without time to ensure that ODF specifies the conformity requirements
> that are essential to achieve the interoperability, then I
> respectfully suggest that it's time for you to stand down from the
> co-chairmanship and a new chair be found who's willing to commit to
> repair of the specification rather than plugfests.

Neither I nor the ODF TC "instigated" the plugfest. It was sponsored by 
the Dutch government and organized by the Open Doc Society.  I was honored 
to be invited and participate.

In the end I serve at the pleasure of the members of the ODF TC and 
whenever a majority of them desire to replace me, there is a defined 
mechanism in place for them to do it.

> Your repeated suggestions here that application-level interop work
> should be given a higher priority than repair of the spec cannot be
> reconciled with your legal responsibilities as the co-chair of the ODF
> TC.

I'm being pragmatic.  Identify the most important real-world interop break 
points from the user's perspective and do what is necessary in the code to 
fix them.  If the standard is found to be the source of the problem, then 
fix the standard as well.   Interoperability begins with an open standard, 
but it doesn't end there.  Other initiatives such as plugfests, 
implementation notes, conformance test suites, validators, reference 
implementations, etc., all play a role.  This is not a trivial engineering 
problem to solve, so we should not deny ourselves the use of proven 
effective tools.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]