Fw: [odf-discuss] Microsoft's implementation of ODF 1.1
marbux at gmail.com
Sat Jan 10 15:07:54 EST 2009
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Jomar Silva <homembit at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 International 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.
I'm very sorry that I don't have the time to take the deep dive into
what's wrong with yet another standard right now. I'm really best at
over-committing myself. :-)
I won't comment on your description of the situation you describe
because of my lack of information and time to acquire it. But on
"must" or "shall" not *always* being the best solution, I agree. But
when faced with a situation where implementations of a document
standard can't interoperate without sharing the same code base, the
bounds of lawful variability in the standard have been vastly
Those who flout the law do so at their own risk.
Universal Interoperability Council
More information about the odf-discuss