On Aug 13, 2007, at 4:20 PM, marbux wrote:
> It's already defined in JTC 1 Directives along with some pretty
> exacting bottom line interoperability requirements that ODF v. 1.2
> fails miserably. E.g., the discretion for implementations to destroy
> metadata xml:id attributes and foreign elements and attributes.
The examples you posted of a definition of interoperability aren't
really all that helpful. They are too general. What does it *really*
mean in practice -- for ODF or any office document format -- to adopt
the following definition?
"For the purpose of this policy statement, interoperability is
understood to be the ability of two or more IT systems to exchange
information at one or more standardised interfaces and to make mutual
use of the information that has been exchanged."
... or this:
"Standards designed to facilitate interoperability need to specify
clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are
essential to achieve the interoperability."
Does it, for example, mean that ODF cannot ever introduce a feature
that all implementations -- including non-ODF implementations such as
MS Office -- do not support? It seems to me that's the upshot of your
position. What does that do for small lightweight tools that want to
claim to be ODF compliant?
Bruce
