Peter Dolding wrote:
> Please pardon my 99 but I think we need it in there. If the document
> become unreadable to the people doing the testing and producing the
> reports it becomes just another nightmare document. Simpler the
> document more likely it can be translated to other languages as need
> and keep its meaning.
>
> 12.* Creation of central lists of documented and non documented
> extensions to ODF found that are not part of the standard. Until
> equal is provided by the ODF standard body.
> 13.* Implementer usable testing systems.(Complete Test of Standard)
> 14.* End User Standard Conformance Verification.(Acid Tests)
>
> 99.* Off the Street Human Readable Charter.
some thoughts:
- I know there was discussion of this central registry. But I don't
recall there being a consensus view that this should be in the
document... Then again, I've been in "skim" mode for the past week or
so wrt this list.. :) If a consensus was reached, then I'll remove this
comment. Peter, I see you as the "sponsor" for this idea, so no
offense, but I'd rather hear of the consensus view from someone else.. :)
- your section 13 contradicts section 1c - scope of work. Specifically
the phrase "The TC will not produce such software." If by "systems" you
mean a set of documents/guides for implementing testing, then I'd tend
to be in agreement. But that needs to be spelled out if sect 13 stays -
but it looks like this type of "systems" is defined by the rest of the
document anyways, so sect 13 seems redundant.
- sections 13 and 14 are close to suggesting HOW the TC will operate,
rather than suggesting guidelines for achieving it's goal. I think we
could leave out both of these items, yet still have them encompassed -
if/when the TC decides they need them. I'm thinking about the early
conversations here, regarding not putting specific limits (to how the TC
may meet it's goals) into the charter.
- Section 99 should NOT be in the definition of the TC charter. That is
covered by the FAQ deliverable, in my view.
Regarding the rest of Dave's original document:
section 1f - the audience designator of "Implementors" is used twice,
with different meanings. This will lead to confusion. May I suggest
the term "distributors" for the first instance?
My thoughts...
Shawn
