Res: Re: [odf-discuss] Microsoft's implementation of ODF 1.1

[Jomar Silva]

I really support Rob's proposal, and you misunderstood it.

His proposal was presented to solve the 'application specific' implementation of a lot of ODF attributes. It solves the problem, stating that all 'application specific' implementation must have its documentation available and if the responsible for the implementation thinks that his feature is important/relevant to most users, it is recommended that his documentation is submitted to the ODF TC as a proposal.

At least in Brazil, during the OOMXL discussion we have a lot of troubles regarding application behavior and application specific implementation, because it is a "dark area". Rob's proposal put some light on it :)

Best,

Jomar


-----Original Message-----
From: marbux <marbux at gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:00:45 
To: ODF Discussion List<odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com>
Subject: Re: [odf-discuss] Microsoft's implementation of ODF 1.1


On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Alex Brown <adjb at adjb.net> wrote:
>
> A similar laxity in conformance requirements for ISO/IEC 29500 (OOXML)
> was somewhat addressed by the introduction of the notion of "application
> descriptions" at that standard's BRM (this was a joint UK-Portugal
> initiative; the world's oldest treaty lives on ...).
>
> By this mechanism "application descriptions" may be defined which
> enumerate the features an application must support.

Something like that is in the ODF TC charter, albeit not in the
"deliverables" list:

"1. In the first phase, this TC has used proven and established
constructs so that the resulting standard can satisfy the immediate
needs of many users, as well as serve as a base for future, less
restricted development. The work of this TC in the first phase has
concentrated on the following areas:
"...

 "b. establishing a set of 'core' elements and attributes to be
supported by all implementations,"

<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/charter.php>.
Unfortunately, the core elements and attributes wound up in an
informational annex (pg. 724 in ODF 1.1) without any corresponding
conformity requirements.

The idea is that
> such desciptions might be used when procuring systems. By default, two
> such descriptions are provided for 29500, "base" and "full" (in which
> "an application conforming to this description has a semantic
> understanding of every feature").
>

The latest draft of the conformance section for ODF 1.2 takes a very
loosely similar approach, defining two classes of conformance,
strictly and loosely conforming.
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30360/conformance-definition-proposal-v6.odt>.
But in my opinion the language is so poorly worded that there are more
loopholes than substance.

With both OOXML and ODF, there is nothing approaching what JTC 1
Directives Annex I (pg. 145) requires for international standards,
which are expected to "clearly and unambiguously specify the
conformity requirements essential to achieve the interoperability."
<http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf>.

> Such a feature might usefully be added to ODF. In fact probably _should_
> be added.
>
> Personally, I believe an application description might also be defined
> for OOXML and ODF which prohibits the use of XML elements/atributes that
> are not explictly defined within the schemas. This would prohibit ad hoc
> extensions to the format in anything other than an explicit way.

I think you'll hit major big vendor resistance on that issue. I
certainly did. Rob Weir in particular has been insistent that
conformant status be granted for application-specific extensions.
E.g.,

"You can certainly define conformance in a way that accounts for
extensions. For example, ISO C Programming Language (ISO/IEC
9899:1999) has a statement in their conformance clause that reads:

"An implementation shall be accompanied by a document that defines all
implementation-defined and locale-specific characteristics and all
extensions."

An example of such documentation is what the GNU gcc compiler
provides: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Implementation.html

"I'm going to push for a statement like that to be added to ODF 1.2.
The phrase 'implementation-defined' should not be a meaningless
statement. You need that conformance requirement to put teeth behind
the phrase 'implementation-defined'.

"I don't think you'll ever eliminate vendor extensions."

<http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/2008-April/007285.html>.

The governing law is contrary: A technical regulation must specify [i]
all characteristics [ii] of an identifiable product or group of
products [iii] only in mandatory "must" or "must not" terms. WTDS 135
EC - Asbestos, (World Trade Organization Appellate Body; 12 March
2001; HTML version), ¶¶ 66-70,
<http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds135_e.htm>;
reaffirmed and further explained, WTDS 231 EC - Sardines, pp. 41-51
(World Trade Organization Appellate Body; 26 September 2002), pp.
41-51, <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds231_e.htm>.

(Under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade the same document
must simultaneously be capable of serving as both an international
standard and a technical regulation (and as a procurement technical
specification under the Agreement on Government Procurement), so those
two precedents apply.)

[more]

> As it is, you are correct - the application conformance bar for ODF (all
> flavours) is not set high, in fact it is resting on the ground.

Unfortunately, yes. It's an international standard in name only,
lacking even implementations.

Best regards,

Paul

-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>