[odf-discuss] Documenting support for ODF 1.1?

[marbux]

On 6/1/07, Thomas Zander <zander at kde.org> wrote:
>
> On Friday 01 June 2007 16:03:45 marbux wrote:
> > On 5/31/07, Daniel <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
> > > Likewise, unless something very unexpected
> > > happens, an ODF 1.0 or 1.1 file will also be a valid ODF 1.2 file
> > > when ODF 1.2 comes out. The OASIS TC will only break forwards
> > > compatibility under extreme duress.
> >
> > The something very unexpected has already happened. The TC voted to
> > change handling of numbered lists in ODF 1.2 in a way that breaks
> > compatibility with ODF 1.0 (and Microsoft Word). That is what
> > triggered the meltdown on the TC now playing out.
>
> As someone that is ON the TC and actively involved in said subjects I will
> just state that Marbux is just under the impression that there is an
> incompatibility while the fast majority made different conclusions.
> On top of that, he has not been able to state where things break other
> than vague hand waving that was pretty easy to counter.


Thomas, you wrote on May 23 in the same TC thread under discussion:

<<<

On Thursday 03 May 2007 23:15:26 marbux wrote:
> On 5/2/07, Thomas Zander <zander at kde.org> wrote:
> > Its the other way around; WW has a 2 key model, with this vote ODF
> > has a 3 key model.  So its simple to emulate a 2 key model in a 3
> > keys one by ignoring one key.
>
> Am I wrong that it isn't all one way? The Foundation is working on a
> plugin for Microsoft Office and so is Sun, as I understand the
> situation. Won't they have to somehow implement a 3-key model in a
> 2-day [key] model in their plugins, given that they can't rewrite MS
Word's
> page layout engine?

Sorry, marbux, you are not making any sense.
If there are features in ODF that MS does not have, how do you think the
ODF TC should behave?
Since that is exactly what you are asking here, you are asking for us to
not add features that WW can't handle as that might mean that docs
created in OOo etc can't be coverted to WW.

<<<

I suspect that was when it finally sunk in with you that the Foundation
lacked the ability to tweak the Word page layout engine.

Ever since you said that, you have simply pretended that you never did. When
I reminded you of what you had said, you abruptly switched to saying there
was no interoperability issue.  And that little dance happened several
times. Here we go again, Now you say above, "As someone that is ON the TC
and actively involved in said subjects I will just state that Marbux is just
under the impression that there is an incompatibility while the fast
majority made different conclusions."

But you omit the fact that you were not always in that "vast majority," that
you admitted the list amendment introduced an incompatibility and never
provided any technical explanation whatsoever for your later bald claims
that there was no incompatibility. That made my points "pretty easy to
counter," didn't it? Just poof! No more compatibility. Magic.

So here we go again. Here's a round trip for you, Thomas, starting from the
problem list tuples of Windows Word ("WW") heading into KWord with its list
triples, an ODT 1.0 app with list tuples and back to WW via the foundation
plug-in.

WW in-memory binary representation > daVinci ODF > KWord > ODT 1.0 app > da
vinci > WW in-memory-binary-representation

How does the WW IMBR list tuple get back to WW IMBR without resorting to
application level hacks, using only the markup provided in the ODF
1.2specification as modified by the lists amendment? I'd like to know.

But you were not the only one who admitted that the list amendment broke
compatibility. Also on May 3, Michael Brauer of Sun wrote in the same thread
(my emphases added):

>>>

> I further believe that the "compatibility" with existing file formats
> is, if at all, only one difference between the proposals. Other
> differences exist regarding the backward compatibility with ODF 1.1[.]
...
> ... Corner cases that seem to occur seldom enough in real life that nearly
> no one until now noticed that ODF currently does not cover them. The
> representation of ***usual*** lists is not changed by either proposal.
>
...

> This means, while there are differences between the proposals, otherwise
> we won't have two of them, we in my opinion must be very careful to ***not
> over-evaluate the impact they have. On "compatibility",*** but also other
> aspects of ODF.
>
...
> As said
> above, the modifications both proposal makes to lists are minor ones and
> the representation of ***usual*** lists is not changed by either proposal.
> Because of that, I can't see how either proposal can ***largely*** change
the
> situation
...
>> Let me also state for the record my that primary concern with the list
> > proposals has nothing to do with the "compatibility with existing file
> > formats - round trip" issue - ***important as that might be to internal
> > plugin converters and translators.***
...
> However, as I said above: We are talking about corner cases. Anything we
> discuss regarding lists does not effect the ***usual*** lists we find in
> documents. So we really ***must not over-evaluate*** the differences.

<<<

So now we have both Sun and KDE -- the proposers of the amendment that
carried, admitting -- after the vote was taken -- that the amendment will
create incompatibilities.

Thomas, you will not be able to find a single post in that thread after you
made that admission where you did any more than just make bald claims that
there was no interoperability problem, totally ignoring what you had
admitted when I pressed you to address the technical flaw in your position.
You made no further technical arguments whatsoever, just kept playing back
the same kind of general "ain't no problem" tape you did here. And when I
repeatedly pointed out that you had already admitted there was a problem,
you simply ignored the point and kept playing that same tape.

I suppose I can keep playing back what you did say the only time you
addressed the flaw in your technical argument. But wouldn't everything go a
bit smoother if you approached the issue forthrightly? Must I continue
rubbing your nose in what you said? This is not the kind of relationship I
want with you.

Best regards,

Marbux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070602/99133fe3/attachment-0001.html