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

[marbux]

On Feb 7, 2008 6:34 AM, <robert_weir at us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> odf-discuss-bounces at opendocumentfellowship.com wrote on 02/06/2008
> 11:40:03 PM:
>
> What would be interesting is an examination of standards or technologies
> that you believe have provided "universal interoperability".  Not
> necessarily document formats, but something adjacent.  Look at how those
> standards were made and maintained, what did they do in particular to
> accomplish their goals.  Point out the best practices, etc.
>
>
Communications protocols would probably be one good area, since electronic
document markup languages evolved from them  and the original handwritten
markup language. Also, the line between data formats and communications
protocols seems to be somewhat wobbly. My sense is that the
telecommunications industry is much farther down the interoperability track
than the off-the-shelf software industry.

<Tangent>

The Court of First Instance ruling in the Microsoft case certainly clarified
a few basic rules in regard to interoperability in the context of
communications protocols. E.g., the ruling that interoperability meant 2-way
as opposed to 1-way interop. I also thought that the line the Court drew on
the quality of interoperability that must be enabled by the disclosures was
absolutely excellent in terms of translation into the level of specificity
required in a standard, i.e., enabling at least the same quality of
interoperability that Microsoft achieves with its own software.

In that regard, there's an interesting blog article published by Microsoft
attorney David Rudin post-Court of First Instance ruling at <
http://standardslaw.com/wordpress/?p=17>. Note that he specifically
addresses document formats. I don't agree with everything he wrote, but he
seems to be taking a position that sounds like an olive branch compared to
Gray Knowlton's recent publications.

I find it rather remarkable that Microsoft is pressing forward with
DIS-29500 after the Court of First Instance decision. If you study part 5 of
DIS-29500, it's quite clear that "interoperable" is used in a sense that
doesn't satisfy the standard announced by the Court of First Instance. Take
for example, this sentence from section 7, the Overview:

A markup producer can produce markup documents that exploit new features
defined by versions and  extensions, yet remain interoperable with markup
consumers thats [sic] are unaware of those versions and extensions.

If anyone can parse that sentence in a way that defensibly allows
"interoperable" to mean 2-way interop with the same quality of interop at
both ends of the trip, I'd love to hear the explanation. :-) But the
sentence is in fact broadly descriptive of the compatibility framework
specified in detail in that volume.

</tangent>

Best regards,

Paul







> -Rob
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20080208/d2f47e1f/attachment-0001.htm