Re: [office] Proposed wording of response to JP2 (change tracking)

Am 01/12/14 um 19:46 schrieb
      :

    

    <>
          wrote on 11/26/2014
          02:15:26 PM:

          

          > From: Chris Rae <>
      

      > To: ODF TC List
          <>
      

      > Date: 11/26/2014 02:17 PM
      

      > Subject: [office] Proposed wording of
          response
          to JP2 (change tracking)
      

      > Sent by:
          <>
      

      > 

          > I thought I’d get the ball rolling here – how about the
          following
          

          > for a response:
      

      >  
      

      > “Change Tracking is a complex feature and
          the
          TC acknowledges that 

          > there are improvements that can be made – the Advanced
          Document 

          > Collaboration subcommittee is working on exactly that for
          ODF 1.3.
          

          > However, we disagree with the suggestion of adding a
          blanket 

          > ‘implementation-defined’ caveat to the whole of section
          5.5. The
          TC 

          > will investigate specific interoperability issues within
          the section

          > if further information can be provided.”
      

      >  
      

      > Chris
      

      

      We could also argue that putting a blanket
          statement
          of "implementation-defined" would not be accurate.   Although
          behavior is not as tightly bound as we'd like it in some
          places, it is
          not entirely unbound either.  
      

      

      We also need to watch out for the distinction
          between
          implementation-defined and implementation-dependent.  If we
          say implementation-defined
          we've put an additional requirement on implementors, to
          document how that
          is implemented.   If we do that (and I'm not sure we can in
          errata)
          then we'd need to make it clear what exactly an implementor
          must document.
      

      

      I guess it all comes down to this:  a vague
          comment
          does not improve the specification.
      

      

      In any case, rather than saying "However, we
          disagree with the suggestion of adding a blanket", maybe
          something
          like "However, we believe it would not be entirely accurate or
          useful
          to implementors of the standard to add...".    Or something
          like that.
      

      

      -Rob
    
    Doing a merge of your two proposals would result into the following,
    which would be fine for me:

    

    "Change Tracking is a complex feature and the TC acknowledges that
    there are improvements that can be made – the Advanced Document
    Collaboration subcommittee is working on exactly that for ODF 1.3.

    However, we believe it would not be entirely accurate or useful to
    implementors of the standard to add a blanket
    ‘implementation-dependent’ caveat to the whole of section 5.5. The
    TC will investigate specific interoperability issues within the
    section if further information can be provided."

    

    Best regards,

    Svante