[odf-discuss] OOXML: The next step

[M. Fioretti]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 04:48:21 AM -0700, marbux wrote:
> 

>> The question IDABC brings up is what an application does, not what
>> a standard allows.  Standards, as currently practiced, specify
>> technical requirements.  They don't specify licensing or permitted
>> uses or compliance testing or patents, etc.
>
> The issue we were discussing -- and what I believe the ODEF
> conference was very much concerned with -- was whether ODF plus
> vendor-specific extensions will be classified as conformant ODF.

just a note: _personally_, my proposal is and remains not exactly what
you say above and in the rest of the message (if I understood it
correctly) as much as

    defining, _OUTSIDE_ any technical standardization process or
    standard body, some official rules to which _every_ set of "basic
    container file + extensions", not just ODF or OOXML, must still be
    conformant to be accepted as an archival or interchange format
    for official documents.

not a technical specification as much as a "quality" program. Using
your words, yes, I'm suggesting to write a "Magna Charta" but just
because "Magna Charta" means a political statement or guideline, not a
technical one, that is something that is not ISO or ECMA or OASIS
business (or any of their corporate members, for that matter) to
define.

Marco

-- 
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84