There must be better places to discuss TC stuff, marbux. Seeing you
hijacking almost every single thread with technical questions for your
political rants is NOT helping the original posters that simply want an
answer to their specific question.
Please be so nice and create your own threads instead of hijacking normal
traffic.
Thanks for listening. Nettiquette still matters. No matter how '95 it seems.
You are behaving trollish sometimes.
Jan
--
Jan H Wildeboer |
EMEA Open Source Affairs | Office: +49 (0)89 205071-207
Red Hat GmbH | Mobile: +49 (0)174 33 23 249
Technopark II, Haus C | Fax: +49 (0)89 205071-111
Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15 |
85630 Grasbrunn |
_____________________________________________________________________
Reg. Adresse: Red Hat GmbH,
Technopark II, Haus C, Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15
85630 Grasbrunn, Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 153243
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Brendan Lane, Charlie Peters, Michael Cunningham,
Charles Cachera
_____________________________________________________________________
GPG Key: 3AC3C8AB
Fingerprint: 3D1E C4E0 DD67 E16D E47A 9564 A72F 5C39 3AC3 C8AB
----- Original Message -----
From: marbux <>
To: <>
Cc:
<>
Sent: Sun Nov 01 13:09:29 2009
Subject: Re: [opendocument-users] Adding tables to ODP files
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:07 AM, <> wrote:
> marbux <> wrote on 10/31/2009 05:15:08 PM:
>> When do we users get that choice and power, Rob? ODF 11?
>>
>
> ODF 1.1 improved over ODF 1.0. And ODF 1.2 will improve over ODF 1.1. We
> don't need to be perfect all at once. The goal is be useful and
> continually improving quality, and increasing adoption.
So ignore the fact that there are minimum market and legal
requirements for interoperability in regard to IT standards until ODF
13? Who benefits in the meantime?
It surely isn't the users who want freedom to switch to different
implementations. Bob Sutor in my opinion accurately called this
situation in his Intraoperability vs. Interoperability article.
<http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1260>. The vendors who
share the OOo code base look from here to be the major beneficiaries
of keeping the spec under-specified in every version. One-way
"interop" at best for the rest of the implementors and their users.
Rob, why has there never been a work item on the ODF TC agenda or
ISO/IEC:26300 or ODF 1.2 that reads: "specify clearly and
unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to
achieve the interoperability?"
Precisely why should the NB delegates at JTC 1 adopt ODF 1.2 as an
international standard without compliance with that section of JTC 1
Directives?
And why should IS 26300 maintenance be left in OASIS hands at the end
of the PAS transition period in 2011, when the ODF TC hasn't even got
a start on compliance with that section?
I'd really like to hear any reasonable answer to those questions.
Best regards,
Paul
Best regards
Paul
--
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
