[odf-discuss] Response to Andy Updegrove's article about the Foundation

[marbux]

On Feb 7, 2008 6:59 AM, Ian Lynch <ian.lynch at zmsl.com> wrote:

>
> I doubt there is any absolutely universal interoperability standard but
> ASCII for text characters and HTML for web pages have been as successful
> as anything else I can think of.



ASCII is a good example, as is its predecessor, the 6-bit teletypesetter
("TTS") code, before folks began extending it soon after electronically
automated typsetting was introduced. But we might bear in mind that,
although now used as a "file format," ASCII was and is officially a
telegraphy communications protocol. What was originally a punched paper tape
for each document fed into the telegraphy networks became a computer "file"
when electromagnetic data storage came along.

One of my hobbies for years has been studying the history of communications
code. I've included an overview of the merger of handwritten markup
languages with telegraphy code and the tower of Babel interop mess that
emerged within a very few years after computers got involved with
typesetting in the North American daily newspaper industry. It's rather
interesting to me that the evolution of markup from the handwritten original
in the typographical trade to telegraphy to computerized markup is very
poorly documented on the web. But that's where it all started when it comes
to word processing. I was a participant, so I took this opportunity to fill
in the critical gap.


> These are of course limited in some
> respects. The more complex the data, the more difficult it is to have a
> universal standard that meets everyone's needs. However that is not a
> reason not to constantly strive to achieve improvement and remove
> unnecessary noise from the system. It's more an issue of a is better

than b rather than a or b is perfect.


I'll disagree to an extent because my vision of "universal interoperability"
is somewhat different from what you describe, although ISO and W3C have
ongoing efforts to eliminate duplicate functionality with different markup
in different standards. From what I've seen, W3C is doing a better job of it
than ISO, which seems to treat it more as an aspiration than a concerted
effort.

In my vision, a universally interoperable standard or technical regulation
specifies everything necessary for interoperability with other apps that
support it in mandatory terms, is completely open and free of IP
encumbrances, allows no discretion for the embracers and extenders of the
world to claim conformance, requires preservation of conformant markup
absent a user-initiated action or other defined situation that requires its
destruction, and other things along those lines.


So let's choose a and improve it
> or replace it with a new c rather than having to deal with the
> complexity of a and b. I see Marbux's work as potentially important in
> informing future developments rather than as providing immediately
> practical implementations.
>

Agreed, although I think there is room for improvement of interop in ODF 1.2.
that shouldn't be put off until v. 1.3.

Seems to me that simple and elegant is generally better than complex and
> confusing. Serving many interests rather than individual interests and
> free from legacy complications are desirable characteristics.
>

Agreed as a general proposition. But the devil is in the details.

Best regards,

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20080208/20954156/attachment-0001.html