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

[marbux]

2008/2/7 <robert_weir at us.ibm.com>:

>
> And we need to keep in mind that interoperability means different things
> to different people.



Hi, Rob,

I really appreciate your candor and encouragement, not to mention some good
ideas.

There were three important areas where I think we differ, with the most
important by far being the issue of whether adherance to the applicable law
can simplify the technological challenge of interoperability. It definitely
can, but a credible discussion of that subject requires a more thorough
briefing than I have time to work on right now. I have too many balls in the
air at the moment. But I will definitely come back to this. I will cover at
least some of it in an article I am preparing that takes a look at DIS-29500
compliance with the law governing interoperability.

I think we all will have things to learn if we take a cross-disciplinary
approach to the interoperability problem. But the short message here is that
we are not exploring entirely uncharted territory when we delve into the
problem of interoperability barriers. Others have been here before us; for
example, the telecommunications industry is more than a century ahead of the
off-the-shelf office productivity software industry in resolving
interoperability issues. Our predecessors blazed a path to follow that is
now a road cobbled with both law and technological innovations, so
intermixed that one may not step on one without stepping on the other.

Best regards,

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20080209/b5313ca3/attachment-0001.htm