[odf-discuss] Documenting support for ODF 1.1?

[Daniel]

Top posting... no further replies below.

Marbux, does this mean that your beef with the proposal is that it adds 
a feature to ODF that MS Word doesn't have?

Daniel.

marbux wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss