[odf-discuss] Alternative to the Foundation plugin

[Thomas Zander]

On Sunday 04 February 2007 14:46, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-02-04 at 11:14 +0000, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > If we feel that the Foundation method (extending ODF) is acceptable,
> > then asking Clever Age to extend ODF with OXML is even more so. In
> > converse, if we don't feel it's acceptable for Clever Age to extend ODF
> > with OXML, then it is less so for the Foundation plugin.
>
> To be clear, this paragraph is the main point of my email.
>
> I think that extending ODF is damaging. What I hope people will get from
> my email is:
>
> 1. An OXML extension is better than a binary extension.
> 2. If you agree that an OXML extension is bad, then so is a binary one.

With the marked exception that you just extended the ODF-specification, where 
the foundation plugin does not.
To be clear; extending the ODF specification is _bad_.  Using the 
odf-specification to add an app extention is great.

Note how the word 'extention' is referring to different things in those two 
points ;)
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070204/f84dadb9/attachment-0001.pgp