Sander Marechal <>
wrote on 06/19/2008 01:43:57 PM:
> wrote:
> > If there is consensus to make CDRF based profiles, then we would
add
> > that to the list of deliverables. If there was consensus
to require
> > only CDRF based profiles, then we would add that restriction
to the
> > scope statement. But I'm not hearing consensus on either
of those.
>
> The rotten part IMHO is that the CDRF spec actually deals with two
> issues: compound documents and profiles. I don't think the compound
> documents stuff is particularly interesting for ODF or how that part
> would impact ODF, but the bits about the profiles is certainly interesting.
>
> Perhaps there is a way to just use the profiles aspect of CDRF and
leave
> out the rest? Would it be easier to achieve consensus on just that
part?
>
The proposed TC can certainly reuse parts of existing
open standards. ODF itself does this in many places with MathML,
XForms, etc. I think the proposed TC should, as one of its initial
tasks, take a broad look at profiles and profile conventions from OASIS,
W3C, ISO/IEC, etc., and create an "ODF Profile Requirements"
documents that state the TC's agreed-upon way of writing profiles.
In terms of the charter, I'd suggest adding the "ODF
Profile Requirements" report to the list of deliverables. But
I think it is premature, not having done completed the research, to put
specific technical limitations regarding profiles into the charter.
-Rob
