"Sam Johnston" <> wrote
on 06/11/2008 10:39:23 AM:
>
> How about something like this? Are there others? We could offer an
> explanation of each as well.
>
> 1> Vendors
> 2> Integrators
> 3> Users
> 4> Purchasers
> 5> Authorities
>
> > I think I'd add:
> >
> > 6) Third-party certification labs
>
> An interesting point - they are likely to be more interested in
> quantitative outputs than the other groups.
>
> > Any others? In particular, would conformity assessment
documents,
> etc., be of use to government, to ICT policy makers, etc., or do
> they think of conformance and interoperability as merely a detail
to
> be left to vendors to sort out?
>
> It seems likely there will be increasing involvement from these
> groups, particularly around 'proving' a standard rather than accepting
> it for face value. Making this task easier for them is arguably a
> noble cause.
>
OK. If I cast it like this, does it still match
your understanding? Or have I missed something?
Implementors and Integrators of ODF applications
and tools (I try to avoid the word 'vendor' since it isn't clear that includes
open source projects)
Users of ODF applications and tools (In particular,
I think we may want to create a report sometime along the lines of "Portable
Document Authoring in ODF: Best Practices and Recommendations")
Procurers of ODF-related technology
Regulators or other authorities who specify
the use of document format standards
Third-party testing and certification labs
> > > Presumably 1g refers to a 'natural language', in which case
US
> > > English seems the obvious choice (presumably this should
be the same
> > > as the ODF TC).
> >
> > I'm not sure if the question is referring to the language of
our
> formal output, or the language used in our conference calls and mailing
list.
> >
> > I think our formal outputs should be in US English, but for the
> mailing list and phone calls, any form of English should be fine.
>
> Ok so what is in place for ODF and other similar groups? Locking it
> down to 'US English' in light of the formal outputs and tolerating
a
> few s's and z's could be the best option, or simply specify 'English'?
>
My impression is most TC's just say "English".
The spell checker of the TC's editor will take care of the rest.
-Rob
