wrote on 02/12/2009 10:19:57 AM:
> Something else that we should consider in this discussion is that a more
> strict conformance of OpenDocument documents is nothing that we are
> discussing because Rob or I do like that, but because there is a demand
> for this from users and organization that want to adopt ODF. I'm
> therefore very sure that if the conformance criteria for (non-extended)
> documents gets less strong, then we then get a demand for a stronger
> level. Which means, regardless how we define or name the individual
> conformance levels, there will be a level which documents that contain
> extensions won't meet.
>
That's a good point. There are a variety of extension models possible. We
obviously shouldn't be doing all of these, but I am hearing interest in
each of the following:
1) Specific-use mechanisms as in ODF 1.0/1.1, such as <style:*properties>
2) General-purpose foreign markup approach, as in ODF 1.0/ODF 1.1
3) ODF 1.2 RDF/XML Metadata
4) Enhance #1 to include additional targeted approach to match all current
uses of #2
5) Enhance #2 to include additional data editing/preservation annotations
so such data can be preserved during editing.
6) A "strict conformance" model where no extensions are allowed.
What we have in ODF 1.0/1.1 is a combination of 1 & 2.
What we have in the current draft of ODF 1.2 are two conformance classes,
one which is 2+3, and one which is 1+2+3.
I definitely know of government adopters of ODF, who are asking for #6,
and will possibly specify the requirement for it even if we don't.
So I'd like to see two conformance classes, one more along the lines of 6,
and one more like 4 or 5. That would allow those who wish to extend ODF
to do it well, i.e., in a way that their extension data has a reasonable
chance of being preserved, as well as defining a non-extended version for
those adopters who consider that as a requirement
Regards,
-Rob
