Hi Jonathan, > So we should continue to pursue this as part of the ODF 3.0 or Interop > committees so that we can "break" things (if necessary) for consistency > in a controlled fashion. > > For the time being, though, I'll be implementing the alternate XML > namespace approach.
Just talked with Michael Brauer, the chair of the ODF TC. According to him, the current status of the proposal [1] is not that it has been rejected. Instead, the proposal was presented, and founded with Accessibility arguments, which were not convincing to some TC members. (In fact, the proposal at the moment still claims that the attribute will help accessibility, since no possibility for grouping exists in current ODF - both is plain wrong.) However, there has neither been a vote on the proposal (so it is not rejected), nor has Florian continued to present / argue for it. Since you and Florian are listed as the proposal owners, I suggest you should re-submit it (or however it is properly called when you continue discussing it, instead of just not talking about it anymore in the TC calls). There's too much uncertainty about whether or not the TC would really accept the proposal - you mentioned multiple times you do not know yourself if/why it was rejected -, that I think you should continue arguing for it in the official channel - in the TC -, until we can be sure that it is accepted or rejected. One point which I think can help (and which I in fact think is a good reason *not* to go for the interop-namespace until the proposal has been officially rejected by TC, if that really ever happens): Microsoft is a member of the TC, too. That is, assuming that they have an interest in ODF (why else should they be a TC member, right?), they should be able and willing to support the proposal - finally, its deeper purpose is exactly to mirror a feature which is present in MS' applications for quite a while. So, either this feature does make sense (which I think it does), then MS should be able to help arguing the reason. Or it doesn't make sense, but is some kind of legacy feature - in this case (and this would be the outcome I would not like) one could argue that OOo does also not need it. So, in short: I think before going for any non-ODF-compliant extensions to the file format, I think you guys should drive the proposal, until the point where it either has been accepted, or rejected. I know that this committee work is more difficult than just hacking, and indeed it's nothing I begrudge you - but I think it's the better way. Ciao Frank [1] http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Grouping_for_Radio_Elements -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
