Doug Mahugh <> wrote on 02/26/2009 12:34:40 PM:
>
> Rob, your core point seems to be that allowing two conformance
> classes is a gracious accommodation of documents that use the
> extension points already defined in ODF. And our position is that
> putting such documents in a separate category is not in the best
> interest of implementers or document users. You are trying to make
> the conformance clause distinguish between two concepts that we see
> as one and the same: standards-conformant documents that include
> custom semantics from non-standardized namespaces. I have many such
> DOCX documents on my laptop computer right now, and they are not
> divided into "truly conformant" and "extended." I think it would be
> great for ODF to be equally accommodating of this sort of
> combination of standardization and innovation.
>
So the question is: Is your inability to see value in the distinction
between the two conformance classes sufficient reason to deny others the
benefit of having and making use of those distinctions that they have
expressed a need for?
I don't question the fact that you, evidently, don't think that this
distinction is valuable. Fine. No one is forcing you to implement that
conformance class. But is that a good reason to deny others the ability
to express conformance distinctions that they value?
It is really a coexistence question. What is the fundamental problem with
having two conformance classes? How does the existence of extended and
non-extended conformance classes prevent you or anyone else from
implementing or using either conformance class? Having two conformance
classes increases choice. It doesn't reduce it. Why are you recommending
that we reduce choice?
-Rob
