On Sep 3, 2006, at 11:09 AM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
...
> In my mind, implementors create extensions as "experiments" to try to
> improve
> the standard. The experiments that don't work out quietly fade away.
> The experiments that succeed get standardized. And that's how
> standards
> move forward to handle changing needs over time.
I like that.
...
>> For metadata, I think the standards of inclusion would likely be
>> different, but we'd still want some statement on this.
>
> Any suggestions on how to word one?
I think for each area it's going to be a little different.
For metadata, my perspective (and not everyone is on board this ...
yet) is to standardize on the RDF model (or subset of it), and on a few
core modules (DC and something specific to ODF, both of which we
already have, Extended DC, and maybe vCard for contact and Creative
Commons for rights).
I'd then call the bibliographic support I'm interested in an extension
module; one I'd want to standardize because doing so is important for
interoperability. If I author a document with citations in OOo, and
send it to a user who uses KOffice or Workplace, those citations better
work, which means not only that they are displayed, but that if the
document is sent back to me, all the logic is still there. Otherwise,
we effectively have broken documents.
I'd then think of other extensions as you do: as either "experiments"
or maybe as more focused terms that may not need standardization.
So in that case the extensions that ought to be blessed by the TC are
those where broad agreement among implementors is valuable, mostly for
the benefit of interoperability.
A bit vague, but I'm sure we can all refine it as we move forward.
Bruce
