Rob,
wrote:
> Patrick Durusau <> wrote on 02/03/2009 08:42:50 AM:
>
>
<snip>
> I'd agree that if we required that an implementation report pricing
> models, sales targets, market share analysis, etc., then that would be
> disallowed. But it is quite the norm these days for an application of the
> type we are defining conformance for to give the user a choice of format
> targets and to report warnings or errors when a document is loaded that
> does not conform to that format. So it is entirely reasonable and proper
> for a standard that defines some behaviors of such an application with
> respect to file formats to also specify how and when it informs the user
> with regards to extensions.
>
>
Sure. Perhaps I was mis-reading Michael's proposal.
Let me say what I was reading and you or others can say if that was what
you saw as well:
I was reading the conformance clause to exclude from ODF 1.2 conformance
an application that produced only a non-strictly conforming ODF document.
In other words, an application that produced only ODF plus some unknown
extension could not claim to be ODF 1.2 conforming.
Was that what you read as well?
The reason I find that problematic is that I may want to have an
application that never produces ODF 1.2 strictly conforming documents.
For example, what if I write an XSLT stylesheet that adds custom work
flow management information to an ODF file and then stores that in a
package. When I sent that file to an ODF application, it simply ignores
the work flow management information that is solely managed by another
application. Since my application is only meaningful in terms of the ODF
1.2 format, I would like to say that it is an ODF 1.2 conforming
application but obviously I am going to tell users that it uses
extensions for the CMS capabilities. As a matter of fact, it could be
the case that the consuming ODF application doesn't even preserve the
work flow information but that is added on every commit to the CMS.
What value do you get by excluding my XSLT stylesheet from saying that
it is an ODF 1.2 conforming application, assuming that it accurately
reports that it uses extensions for the CMS capabilities?
I mean for it to consume and produce ODF 1.2 documents for consumption
by other ODF 1.2 applications. Why deny me the label of ODF 1.2 conformance?
Note that I freely grant that the conformance requirements can say:
Conforming applications must/should say whether they do a, b, c, or a +
b, etc. Just so I can compare applications in a meaningful way.
I would assume that creators of non-strictly conforming producers aren't
going to conceal those capabilities. They are no doubt the rationale for
some feature, etc.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
