On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 02:37 -0600, Bob Jolliffe wrote:
> I am struggling to understand why so much energy is being spent on
> this issue. The point of the effort is to produce an approved ODF 1.2
> standard. That is a matter of time but is the inevitable outcome. At
> that point the authoritative version of that standard will indeed be
> formatted using an approved standard (ie itself).
>
> Is the argument that all the committee drafts produced along the way
> should not use the pre-approved format, but then we convert to ODF 1.2
> for the final publication? That seems silly and perhaps prone to
> error. I fully support the current proposal to designate the odf 1.2
> version as the authoritative working document. To me it is a simple
> expression of confidence in the end result.
>
I don't care in what format drafts are published. My problem is with
having the _final_ version of a ODF1.2 to be written in ODF1.2. In that
case the specification of the standard would depend on that
specification itself. As mathematician I can well imagine a text that
has more than one self-consistent interpretations, ie. a different
implementation could implement that standard differently but in such a
way that its presentation of the standard again fits what it is doing.
Andreas
