Tanstaafl wrote > On 3/20/2014 5:28 PM, e-letter < > inpost@
> > wrote: >> Thank you. It is a worry that 17 out of 24 "features" are in fact >> devoted to "interoperability" with m$. > > Nope, not a worry at all. Compatibility with the office product that holds > the vast majority of the market share is a decent objective. In fact, there is even an ODF / OOXML Translation Guidelines standard (ISO/IEC TR 29166) to further clarify the issue. This is another standard that also may need updating once the final less-clear parts of OOXML are worked out by ISO/IEC JTC 1, SC 34. General comment: While this thread appears to have taken on a life of its own with respect to "compliance" and "validation" (which are not the same) the comment by T. Behrens in bug fdo#30711 <https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30711#c3> is worth reading. Of particular interest is the reference to "ODF-Next". This is an expression used to generally refer to the version of the standard that is under development (but never actually arrives, it rolls over). The term is widely used within OASIS. In standards terms it is a mirroring of the train development model used by LO i.e., a past, present, and future version at any one time. This is what I meant up-thread when I stated that ODF development "needs to be practical (based on real-world use cases) and community-driven" i.e., adapted to cater for unforseen use cases by people who are creating documents or even matters that were not thought of in the original spcification. Even so, I can understand the concern that ODF v1.2 Extended is not an ISO/IEC standard. I guess all that can be said by way of reassurance is to re-iterate what Italo and Mark Bourne have each indicated: the extra bits will not affect either validation or compatibility as they will be ignored. TomD wrote > How about trying to get involved with OASIS to see if any of the critical > assumptions have any basis in reality? Thanks for bringing this up. All these standards organisations, including ISO/IEC and OASIS, rely on volunteered time. There is a mis-conception that because the voting rights list reads like the Fortune 500 that hundreds of paid professionals are tirelessly working away. That is really only part of the story. As with any free / open source / community venture issues are often left to languish unless someone takes an interest. I recently enquired of OASIS whether a proposal for a new chart type (box plot) had moved along, as there was little detail in the related OASIS issue. The response was an invitation to become more involved by writing up the required technical proposal, which is exactly as it should be. I am still hopeful I can. Best wishes, Owen. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-LO-compatibility-tp4101492p4102482.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
