[odf-discuss] Documenting support for ODF 1.1?
mfioretti at mclink.it
Thu May 31 04:52:05 EDT 2007
> M. Fioretti wrote:
> > with respect to the "Applications" page at
> > http://opendocumentfellowship.org/applications:
> > all the information refers to support for ODF 1.0 only, right?
> > If so, maybe it should be said explicitly in the page.
> The question never arose. Are you convinced that the differences
> between ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1 are so great that they would impact
> anything on that page?
it couldn't matter less what _my_ own belief is or how many and how
big the differences are, see below. For the record, I do also know the
difference between applications and formats, thanks.
> Please name one difference that could reasonably alter the status of
> a single application on that page.
There is a possibility that only "ODF 1.1 THE FORMAT" is 100%
compliant with existing laws (at least here) regulating public
websites, documents and equal employment opportunities wrt disabled
users. Since anything less is not acceptable, not when laws are
if there is no application that already fully supports ODF 1.1
_today_, then you cannot propose or pass _today_ a regulation that
just says "our public administration *must* switch to ODF/OpenOffice
(or even ODF/Ms Office) from Jan 1 2008". (which is just the real
world case from which my questions came, by the way).
Not unless you have added in advance a ton of specifications to the
laws saying how to not be in conflict with the other laws and how to
take care of accessibility and disabled employees/users since day one
in a 100% LEGAL way:
or have the guts to say "that other law is a piece of crap, let's
replace it with a new one now":
or propose public financing for development of 100% ODF1.1 support in
OO.o, or any combination of these three things. Otherwise, you will
have just wasted time and public money.
Me, I have no doubt that ODF must be become the one standard in PAs as
soon as possible anyway. But it won't happen believing that any law
that says "any ODF is a must now period" is OK.
A politician, lobbyist, activist, whatever, CANNOT be prepared, add
those specifications in law proposals since the beginning etc... if
they haven't an easy way to figure out that ODF 1.0 is NOT (legally speaking) ODF 1.1, what the status of ODF 1.1
support is, or to realize that the issue exists.
Is this enough of a difference?
Of course, I do NOT mean with this to bash your efforts and
competence. I am NOT even demanding that that page is rewritten from
scratch yesterday, or next month.
But we can sigh or have fun discussing how clueless politicians are or
how end users should or could be forced to use some tags in some other
context. Things stand as I have just described, so unfortunately an
answer like the one you just gave is not useful, even if I
completely agreed with you. This is all I wanted to explain.
More information about the odf-discuss