RE: Re: [office] DSIG proposal - Application vs. Implementation re specifications

Um, implementation-specific and application-specific are different for me.

To be clear in this case, specifications such as the one for xml-dsig,
xml-id, and also URI and IRI, provide for application-specific
customizations and elaborations.  In this case, incorporation in the ODF
specification is an *application* relative to those specifications.  ODF
might provide for further application-specific (e.g., an industry-specific
interoperability profile) and implementation-specific details as well.  My
intention was to use application-specific in the sense that incorporation in
ODF is an application of the other specification (not an implementation),
and that profile details are important (especially in the application of URI
segments to elements within a Zip file and generally in the reference to
PKZip, which covers a lot of things that one hopes not to have to be deal
with in ODF processor).  If I deviated from that objective, it was
unintentional.

 - Dennis

PS: I don't believe that the conformance clauses are approved at this point,
but I don't think that matters to this discussion.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jomar Silva [mailto:] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00052.html
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 14:37
To: Bob Jolliffee; ; office TC
Subject: Res: Re: [office] DSIG proposal - URI vs.

Just a note on Bob's (excellent) answer.

We already approved the conformance clauses proposed by Michael an we have
there some details about what 'application specific' means for ODF 1.2
documents (as far as I remember, the definition was Rob's suggestion made on
November, 2008).

Best,

Jomar

[ ... ]