[odf-discuss] A story of TIFF

[Daniel Carrera]

On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 03:21 -0800, marbux wrote:
> I guess I missed that. Can you point me to the posts.

Peter did an apt job.

> You've misunderstood what I was saying. I am not talking about
> individual applications adding their own extensions and declaring
> their own subsets.

But this is the precedent that the Foundation plugin is setting. It is
adding non-ODF extensions to store binary blobs it can't understand. As
for subset, this is what you wrote:

<marbux>the Foundation developers have identified a need to declare an
MS Office "interoperability subset" of ODF</marbux>

This is an application-specific interop subset.

You also said:

<marbbux>there may be some big advantages to declaring interop subsets
for specialized types of ODF apps</marbux>

So that's category-specific interop subsets.

I also note that:

<marbux>I'll stress that I'm the only one I know of who is pushing for
discussion of the potential need for ODF interop subsets for anything
but interop with MS Office.</marbux>


> As a separate matter but tangentially related to the outliner interop
> subset, I noted the need to add some tags to ODF so that true
> outliners can use ODF.

You do understand what a "subset" is right? Adding a tag is not a
subset, it's an extension. Just making sure...

> Since your entire post was affected by your misunderstanding  of what
> I said, I won't respond further.

Well, I'm glad that your post was more succinct than usual, and for that
I commend you. I note, though, that you skipped the parts about
extensions. Since you didn't ask for more clarifications on the story of
TIFF, I assume that you get it now.

Daniel.
-- 
May you live in interesting times.
May people in high places take notice of you.
May all your wishes come true.
  -- Chinese curse.