On 18.03.2012 17:33, Svante Schubert wrote:
More
important, when reading we should prioritize the requirements into
three groups: 1, 2 and 3. Where 1 is the most urgent group with
certain scope of our next release and 2 like a maybe for next
release and 3 with a worthwhile, but follow up requirement.
I forgot to mention the scenarios for the request of priorities:
The complete set of ODF can hardly be implemented in one step
due its amount of feature-set. IMHO a quick adoption of future
technology could be best archived by collecting the most
demanding use cases - like the set the extended change-tracking
proposal defined and define it as first mandatory set.
It does not work out, if two ODF applications declare to
support change-tracking, but define different functionality.
There should be one minimum set being defined for a minimum of
interoperability. Like implement the minimum of this feature or
leave it.
Note: There might be further sets than three at all, like three
sets for each mime type or even more.
Best,
Svante
