> On 11-02-2015, at 12:45, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > -- replying below to -- > From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 06:04 > To: [email protected]; Dennis E. Hamilton > Subject: Re: UnRTF Makes HTML > [ ... ] > > Perhaps we need to return, however, to our roadmap ambition. For instance, > what kind of plans do we have regarding ODF support? If we think it is time > to return to roadmap discussions, let’s start a new thread on that subject > and focus, yes? > > <orcmid> A start? > > I'm not so sure about plans, since it depends on where the developer effort > comes from, but I can see some definition happening.
Developers can cam from good plans. > > 1. I don't think the code base around DocFormats and the HTML in and out is > quite stable yet. Let's assume it is declared stable enough with acceptable > interface/architectural boundaries. Would what we have now, or even aground stable with what we have (or shortly shall) be sufficient to frame a specification for development of support? > > 2. Then we know that there needs to be an ODF access component and an ODF > edit/create component. > > 3. With regard to feature support, there needs to be an agreement on how > features not supported through Corinthia are to be dealt with. There are two > cases - features that cannot round-trip safely through the HTML, an features > that are not even mapped to or from the HTML. This is an iterative cycle. Yes. > > 4. Presumably, the feature set at the HTML level for editing of OOXML should > be the target at any point for ODF also. So we know what the HTML case is > and have the equivalent ODF features target those cases should be a feasible > way of tracking with the evolution of Corinthia and DocFormats. > > 5. I don't know if there is any source-target capability intended. That is, > ODF -> HTML -> OOXML and vice versa. That makes for nice testing cases > though. It may serve the other Corinthia effort that is not being discussed, > the profiling of document-format provisions in implemented documents. > > Is this enough to get the ball rolling? Yes, at least for me, it clarifies some points, but others (i.e., they who know what they are talking about) need to weigh in. It’s also possible that one can use—???—some of or even a lot of WebODF’s capabilities and code here? Would also make sense, perhaps, to invite Jos et al., into this discussion? > > </orcmid> -louis >
