Dennis E. Hamilton schreef op 02-10-2016 23:01:
It is a misunderstanding to assume that there is some "strict" ODF
conformance requirement. That is factually not the case, nor does
anything in the specification require some clear conformance for
interoperability.
Exactly the same issue as with DLNA/UPNP as what I mentioned. People
found that the standard was too loose to really guarantee
interoperability and some things were optional that were actually needed
for full functionality as well.
ODF may simply become whatever LibreOffice
does, just proving that any open-format standard can become a silo.
Proving that the application is the focus point and not the format.
PS: The ODF specification is not tight enough for what many seem to
automatically presume. For a technical analysis of that, I have a
free-to-download technical paper that walks through how it goes, with
the failures of change-tracking as a case study:
<http://nfoworks.org/rct/>. Click on the title "Tracked Changes" for
the free PDF. Sections 1-2 should make the situation clear enough.
I assume that change-tracking involves the being able to undelete stuff?
There is now a (or was, last summer, a) GSoC project on LibreOffice as
to that issue.
I saw some of your diagrams. I guess the point was to indicate that the
cross-line deletes can be done in multiple ways and if two applications
differ they produce differing results.
It seems so much to me like a ... you might even call it an exercise in
futility. Getting people to cooperate that all want to do a different
thing.
The situation is now such that you will not be able to know which ODF
document was created by what application, and since it is rather
important to know which one it was, we have a problem here, sir.
Using the same format is now a /hindrance/ rather than a blessing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
