[odf-discuss] Rick Jelliffe suggestions for ODF supporters

[Daniel Carrera]

marbux wrote:
>> 1) ODF has features that SVG lacks. As long as these are in a separate
>> name-space, they cannot be considered extensions.
> 
> The name-space under discussion is a unique OASIS namespace that is
> supposed to be compatible with SVG.

You are being overly simplistic. Some of the features that the blog 
author complains about, the ones that actually *add* functionality, are 
on a different namespace ("draw"). As far as I can tell, the things he 
complains about fall into two groups: (1) new features that exist in a 
different name-space ("draw:...") and (2) removing features from SVG 
(which is subsetting).


> You blink past my use case as well as my entire discussion of the
> reasons profiling of existing standards...

Blah blah blah. I merely address the issue of whether ODF extends SVG or 
not with some input of my own. I am not required to read at length any 
tangential discussion that you start. You are verbose and I have other 
things to do with my time.


> Do you deny that the ODF use of SVG is incompatible in
> transformations with SVG itself because of ODF-specified elements in
> the OASIS SVG namespace that do not exist in SVG?

I am not yet aware of any ODF-specified elements in the OASIS SVG 
name-space that do not exist in SVG. They might exist, but I am yet to 
see one. I noticed the blog listing some ODF-specified elements 
*outside* the OASIS SVG name-space which do not exist in SVG. As they 
are outside, my first reaction is that they are acceptable and do not 
constitute an extension.


>>> "Hijacking" is a fair characterization of what the ODF TC did in
>>> regard to SVG, SMIL, and XForms.
>> That is an opinion, not a fact. An opinion that some might dispute.
> 
> So far not on grounds that address my use case and the issue it
> exposes.

Circular reasoning. Your "use case" is based on the assumption that ODF 
extends SVG, which is the very thing you are trying to prove. Once 
again, you convinced yourself of a questionable premise and instead of 
trying to support it honestly you go at length about why it is evil. As 
I said earlier, it may be that you have valuable things to contribute to 
this discussion. Maybe there is an extension of SVG that I do not know 
about. But instead of trying to find one, you assume that there is and 
run with it.


>> As for the rest of your post: I wish you would tone down your anti-ODF
>> rhetoric. *One would think that you are employed by Microsoft.* Whatever valid
>> points you might have are quickly lost in your antagonism.
> 
> I thought this list was being moderated for ad hominem attacks? What
> is your factual basis for that statement?

The statement is only an impression, not an accusation. When an ODF 
supporter criticizes ODF, I would normally expect to see it presented in 
less anti-ODF rhetoric.


> The fact that I point out bugs in ODF does not make me a Microsoft
> empoyee.

Ah, but you don't. At least not in my opinion. I have seen other non-MS 
people point out bugs in ODF, and I believe I have pointed out a couple 
myself. But normally those commentaries focus on facts and don't go to 
the lengths that you do to paint one party as evil or use troll-like 
overcharged language. I expect them to focus on actually pointing out bugs.


Daniel.