marbux <> wrote on 06/19/2009 05:51:19 AM:
>
> Please point me to all those interop defect reports IBM has filed
> against the specification, Rob? I'm apparently suffering a huge memory
> loss. Not. And even though we deal with a hypothetical situation
> rather than reality, aren't you presupposing that the TC would adopt
> the same solution for the problem that you've implemented in your app?
> I can already hear the cries like KDE's that if the spec doesn't
> permit a choice between ordered list tuples and ordered list triples
> they'll have to write a converter for their legacy documents.
>
For example, the major theme of ODF 1.1 was accessibility, aka
interoperability with screen readers for blind users. IBM took a leading
role in analyzing the specification to find problems in this area and
proposing fixes.
We're certainly aware of interoperability issues in Symphony, but our
analysis shows that they are either implementation defects or
specification ambiguities that are already known and fixed in ODF 1.2.
I'm looking at this very pragmatically, Paul. Let's do what is necessary
to improve interoperability, without any presumptions of who or what is to
blame. I'm not adverse to improving the specification if that is where
the problem is. But in practical terms, only code can exhibit
interoperability problems, since users only run code. So I think an
approach, like used at the Plugfest, where we concentrate on user-facing
scenarios and determine the source of the error and address that error.
This is an engineering-based approach.
You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating an approach that merely
mandates interoperability and then assumes that the problem goes away. But
it doesn't work that way. Whether interoperability is mandatory or
voluntary, the engineering effort required to achieve interoperability is
exactly the same. Changing 1,000 should's to shall's accomplishes exactly
nothing for the user. In fact it is far easier to get vendors to agree to
change a should to a shall after they have changed their code (or at least
committed to changing their code) than to make a change in the standard
that will automatically leave every implementation non-conformant. So
again, the emphasis on finding the practical interoperability problems via
user-facing scenarios, finding the source of the interoperability problem,
agreeing on a solution, and implementing the solution.
-Rob
