[odf-discuss] A story of TIFF

[Daniel Carrera]

On Mon, 2007-05-02 at 11:26 +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> With respect, Daniel, you definitely have a problem with understanding the 
> writings of others and not blindly arguing for weeks based on such a 
> misreading.

Did I mis-read the point that the Foundation plugin uses section 1.5 of
ODF to add new tags where it stores unknown binary blobs? That point
seems straight forward enough. I can believe that we've both misread
some of the things the other have said. I can think of several things
that you or Marbux misread, and that's just a fact of life, I don't
blame you for those. For example, Marbux thought that I was advocating
the use of OXML to extend ODF, whereas it was intended as an example of
a way to achieve the same benefits of the Foundation plugin, in order to
make a point.

> > I think you are too reluctant to 
> > see flaws in the solution you prefer. I see problems with it.
> 
> Your so called problems are based on a couple of misconceptions.

We've talked a lot about this, and the only conclusion that I've seen
(and for which I'm grateful) is a disagreement on the definition of the
word "extension". I thank you for helping isolate that point of
disagreement. When I say "extension" I include adding new tags not
present in the ODF spec, via section 1.5 and you do not. Ultimately,
however, the position I present remains intact. The consequences of
adding unknown binary objects (both the good ones and the bad ones) are
unaffected by how you or I choose to define the word "extension".

Best wishes,
Daniel.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070205/98ca6eb2/attachment-0001.pgp