atom feed38 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.officeRe: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Con...
FromSent OnAttachments
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 8:44 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 19, 2009 9:16 am 
Patrick DurusauJan 19, 2009 10:05 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 10:10 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 19, 2009 10:31 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 10:44 am 
Patrick DurusauJan 19, 2009 10:57 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 19, 2009 11:09 am 
David FaureJan 19, 2009 11:10 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 19, 2009 12:52 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 1:29 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 1:29 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 3:18 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 3:46 pm 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 19, 2009 11:44 pm 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 19, 2009 11:54 pm 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 20, 2009 1:31 am 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 20, 2009 5:05 am 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 20, 2009 5:32 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 20, 2009 5:58 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 20, 2009 8:42 am 
David FaureJan 20, 2009 10:02 am 
Duane NickullJan 20, 2009 10:30 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 20, 2009 10:51 am 
David FaureJan 20, 2009 11:59 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 20, 2009 12:41 pm 
David FaureJan 20, 2009 5:04 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 20, 2009 9:39 pm 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 21, 2009 12:09 am 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 21, 2009 12:56 am 
Duane NickullJan 21, 2009 9:26 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 21, 2009 11:04 am 
Duane NickullJan 21, 2009 11:31 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonFeb 3, 2009 3:23 pm 
robe...@us.ibm.comFeb 3, 2009 4:48 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonFeb 3, 2009 8:45 pm 
robe...@us.ibm.comFeb 4, 2009 11:24 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonFeb 4, 2009 12:06 pm 
Subject:Re: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Law of Unintended Consequences
From:Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg (Mich@Sun.COM)
Date:Jan 20, 2009 5:32:45 am
List:org.oasis-open.lists.office

On 01/19/09 22:29, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

One more thing about floor=ceiling.

Later, not realizing the connection to the floor=ceiling case until now, I took on as an architectural practice for interfaces and specifications that it is always easier to relax a restriction later than it is to later restrict a relaxed definition. When I am in a quandary over some provision, this is always a valuable tie-breaker for me. (I call this the Wilson Principle for Richard Wilson, an internal-systems architect at Xerox in the 70's.)

We find ourselves facing the second situation, not the first, and we have a number of "extension" points baked in. We will have to decide what we will do, normatively, about the 1.2-ness of scripts in languages specified by a QName prefix, table formulas (ditto), defined extension provisions in the repertoire of formula functions, etc.

Well, actually we have decided this already with the approval of ODF 1.1, and/or proposals we have accepted that change anything in this area. So, unless a TC member proposes a change to one of the many extension points we have, things stay as they are. At least, my conformance proposal does not touch any other extension mechanism than foreign elements.

We are discussing foreign elements because they a) were part of the conformance clauses we need to refine, and b) because with the meta data features two main arguments for having them (embedding on non-ODF information, extension of metadata) have disappeared. I think we should limit the discussion to this feature. We may discuss specific adjustments to other extension areas, but I think we should do so separately.

Best regards

Michael

By the way, I have no objection to conformant being tightly defined, although honoring the strict schema by itself won't do the job we think it accomplishes, depending on how the above things are accounted for in the schema (I don't know), and how things like binary sub-files having vnd.* MIME types are to be accounted for.

It may be that loosely-conformant is the wrong term, but neither conformant nor loosely-conformant, at the moment, determine whether interoperability will be easy or hard. What I like about loosely-conformant is that it provides that there be a conformant document in there, given certain adjustments. (There are also some edge cases that one might worry about, where dropping an attribute means there is no attribute in a way that impairs the document, table cell formulas being an interesting case. This condition only works well for ODF 1.2 because of its completeness with OpenFormula. This is an argument for recognizing those cases as loosely-conformant, but it is not my ox that gets gored if only the OpenFormula case qualifies in a conformant spreadsheet document.)

- Dennis

-----Original Message----- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:denn@acm.org]

Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 10:45 To: robe@us.ibm.com Cc: off@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Law of Unintended Consequences

This also reminds me of another debate, called floor=ceiling.

Floor=Ceiling was debated in the early days of initial COBOL standardization efforts and it continued for a while. I can't recall which side of the debate Committee Chair Howard Bromberg held onto and if he flipped at any time.

Generally, producers of implementations did not look kindly at floor=ceiling and user communities (but not all of them) and especially standards sheriffs of various persuasions wanted floor=ceiling. Of course, COBOL was modularized and there were definite implementation-specific provisions (COMPUTATIONAL-1, COMPUTATIONAL-2, ... and similar aspects coming to mind), so I am not sure how much it was felt that floor=ceiling was achieved, in the end.

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering