[odf-discuss] One standard (was: GNOME Foundation Statement...)
cputtick at gmail.com
Mon Nov 26 02:47:17 EST 2007
Here's a quick stab at a definition:
There should only be one standard for any particular area or sub-area.
This single standard should be superceded when another rival
specification reaches a point that it is demonstrably better than the
current standard in the majority of areas within its scope, and of
reasonable equivalence in the areas where it is not better. Where
possible and reasonable the new standard should be backwardly
compatible with its predecessor.
Using the above draft definition, OOXML should be a standard (once all
the cruft, inconsistencies, missing definitions, etc. are sorted).
Those missing definitions would include the mapping between the legacy
binary formats, version by version. This last is important, because
there is one more condition to OOXML being a standard: a change in its
scope, focusing on the key area Microsoft and Ecma return to again and
again: a standard for the conversion of legacy Microsoft Office
documents for the purpose of preservation.
We of course need the mapping to demonstrate that it truly is ideal
for that purpose...
On 26/11/2007, Jonathon Coombes <jon at cybersite.com.au> wrote:
> So again, I concur with the caution about suggesting we
> can have only "one standard" without clarifying very carefully how
> this is defined and why.
> Jonathon Coombes
> OOo Knowledgebase:- http://mindmeld.cybersite.com.au
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com
My employers website: http://thehumanjourney.net - opinions in this
email are however very much my own and may not reflect that of my
current employer, past employers, associates, friends, family, pets etc..
Documents attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format:
More information about the odf-discuss