"Andreas J. Guelzow" <> wrote on 01/13/2011
11:45:41 AM:
>
> I concur with Dennis. Suggesting that implementers may use CSD's to
> justify the use of the ODF namespaces for feature will just continue the
> current nightmare of some implementations creating files claiming to be
> ODF1.2 before such a standard has been approved. If an implementor wants
> to use a feature proposed for a new standard it really should use a
> foreign namespace. If in the end that use will match the feature as
> adopted in an ODF standard it would be easy for any implementation
> supporting the feature in ODF also to support that foreign element.
>
I think the important thing is to have some consistency between what your
office:version attribute is and what markup your document uses. If
version = "1.0" or "1.1" then you shouldn't be using any ODF-namespaced
enhancements from ODF.
If you set version to "1.2", then I think you want to be conforming to
some version of the ODF 1.2 draft. It would be odd not to. One can
conform to a WD, or CSD or CS just as one can conform to a standard.
Conformance is just the relation of the product to the conformance clause.
It would be clearer, I think, if we had a consistent way to express a
fine grained version, such as "1.2 (CSD06)" or even eventually "1.2
(Errata 01)".
Remember, OASIS requires that we have conforming implementations before we
can send a Committee Specification for ballot as an OASIS Standard. So
there will always be a period of time when we have implementations of
not-yet-approved specification.
In any case, I'd rather have this problem (vendors implementing our drafts
early) than the opposite problem (vendors being slow to implement our
published standards).
I wonder if the impact of the problem would be reduced if we can turn
around standards faster? In other words, would it be more tolerable if a
vendor implements a draft 6 months before the standard is finally approved
compared to implementing it 2 years before approval? I think that is
something we have more direct control over.
Regards,
-Rob
