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

[Jomar Silva]

Hi Paul,

Just to illustrate the discussion, please take a look at the traceroute flag (or attribute) at the TCP/IP protocol and the real world implementation (and usage) of the traceroute functionality.

To be more specific, take a look at the IETF specifications and at the MTR source code and documentation (GPL 'mega' traceroute application) and please tell me each one is more useful (at the real world, the MTR source code saved my life after more than a month testing the real world usage of the traceroute flag/attribute without any solid results). You may understand (note the MAY word) the MTR docs and source code as an 'application specific implementation' docs.

On a perfect world, 'must' and 'shall' are ok, but I'm so sorry, we live on a world of maybe and if a standard isn't 'may' enough, just few folks will use it (please check the latest CNN news and you will see how far we may go without a 'maybe' on our lives).

Must or Shall isn't always the best solution. 

Best,

Jomar
 
-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:59:08 
To: ODF Discussion List<odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com>
Subject: Fw: [odf-discuss] Microsoft's implementation of ODF 1.1


odf-discuss-bounces at opendocumentfellowship.com wrote on 01/05/2009 
04:32:17 PM:

>Standards are about uniformity, not about product differentiation. ODF
>and OOXML are not true standards precisely because do not specify all
>characteristics of an identifiable product or group of products only
>in mandatory "must" or "must not" terms.

Hi Paul, I think the above is at the core of your argument.  So I 
understand your position perfectly, are you asserting that a standard is 
only permitted to include mandatory requirements, e.g., those expressed by 
"shall" and "shall not" in ISO practice, or "must" and "must not" in IETF 
practice?  Further, are you asserting that a standard that includes even a 
single optional requirement or recommendation, e.g., a "should" or "should 
not" in ISO practice, or expresses an implementation option, e.g., "may" 
in ISO practice, is not a "real standard", or is an unlawful standard, or 
is a standard that may not be specified as a requirement for government 
procurement?

Regards,

-Rob
_______________________________________________
odf-discuss mailing list
odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com
http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss