Amen.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 14:09, <> wrote:
> > 2. What about a sentence on the specification like: "It is
>> recommended that all custom view mode specification documentation is
>> made available to enhance documents interoperability" ?
>>
>
> The issue Warren raises is a general issue, not exclusive to view mode
> alone. One way to address this globally is two add two things to the ODF
> text:
>
> 1) Where ever something like this occurs, explicitly call the behavior
> "implementation-defined". Use that as a uniform label of areas where ODF
> allows implementations to implement their own behaviors. So we say
> something like "Additional view modes may be used, but they shall be
> prefixed by a namespace qualifier not defined by this standard. The
> behavior of such view modes is implementation-defined".
>
> 2) Then in the conformance clause, we add language like: "An
> implementation shall be accompanied by a document that defines all
> implementation-defined and locale-specific characteristics and all
> extensions." (That is the language directly out of ISO/IEC 9899:1999 C
> Programming Language. You can see here what one implementation created to
> define its "implementation-defined" features:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Implementation.html
>
> We don't need that exact language, but you get the idea. A standard can
> allow implementation-defined behavior, but can also require that these be
> documented. If we're going to do this, I'd rather we do it pervasively in
> the standard rather than just in the view mode attribute.
>
> What do TC members think?
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
