Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next

[Michael Brauer <michael.brauer@oracle.com>]

Dennis,

what you describe is an interesting approach, but I don't think it is compatible with the OASIS Naming directives:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/ndr/namingDirectives.html

Best regards

Michael



On 17.01.2011 21:15, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

I agree, it should not be called ODF 1.3 until there is a full
standards-track CSD on the way to becoming a Committee Specification.

I think they should simply be ODF CSD's, with progressive numbering (e.g.,
continue beyond CSD07 if we take CSD07 to Committee Specification as
expected).

It would be even better if we could somehow treat these CSDs as provisional
supplements to ODF 1.2 until we roll them out as ODF-next.  (The version
could indicate use of supplements in some manner when produced in documents,
perhaps office:version="1.2+CSD08" or some-such, although the processing of
version identifications would become more complicated (and is probably
something that CSD08 needs to deal with).  [Note: The current definition of
the generator string says it should not be used to distinguish features of
implementation versions by design, so we should not mess with that.]

It would be even better if we could do some CSDs *as* supplements, avoiding
the need to reissue the full set of ODF documents every time when the CSDs
might offer only relatively-localized changes.  This should also take a lot
of friction out of the desire to provide CSDs on regular, relatively-short
cycles.

I am not at all sure how the TC Process could handle this sort of thing, but
it seems sufficiently better for the labors of TC volunteers and for
reviewers and developers that it is worth finding out.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas J. Guelzow [mailto:andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca] 
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 06:38
To: Michael Brauer
Cc: robert_weir@us.ibm.com; office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next

On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 03:59 -0700, Michael Brauer wrote:
  

Hi Andreas,

Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:

    

While I realize that we can't mandate that and in fact have no control
over whether a vendor calls their format ODF1.3 or whatever, I thin kwe
      

A CSD approval is the first level of approval in the OASIS TC process.
So, if we approve an ODF 1.3 draft as CSD, and if an implementor 
implements this CSD, why shouldn't that be called ODF 1.3? How would you 
call it instead?
    

Since there can be incompatible changes between CSD1 and CSD2, I
definitely would not call it ODF1.3. 

Andreas
  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 

  

--

Michael Brauer | Oracle Office Development
Phone: +49 40 23646 500 | |
Oracle Office Global Business Unit

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 Hamburg

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603

Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Rijnzathe 6, 3454PV De Meern, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven

Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment