jose lorenzo wrote:
> --- On Thu, 6/19/08, Shawn <> wrote:
>> 3. Are we testing how to use ODF to interact with other formats
>> (OOXML, CDR, etc.)
>
> Rob (that I remember) has stated that he has been approached with
> those requests. I think that is within scope but of lower priority to
> cleaning house to some extent so that ODF itself is better.
> ODF-only/mostly inter-app interop seems to be getting more votes by
> more people than inter-protocol interop; however, if (eg) marbux and
> others have contributions to make on interop with other standards, I
> think that will carry weight.
From what I read, Marbux's hammering on CDRF doesn't have anything to
do with inter-protocol interop (i.e. between ODF, OOXML, XHTML,
etcetera) but with interop inside the ODF universe (i.e. a way to make
sure that if the TC creates interop profiles, that those profiles
actually provide interop). See
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00353.html
Marbux wrote:
> I.e., an implementation of an ODF desktop word processor profile
> (more featureful) that opens a document generated by an implementation
> of a subset ODF web app editor profile (less featureful) would process
> the document as though the latter were the superset. The document can
> then be edited in the more featureful app and sent back to the less
> featureful app in a vocabulary the less featureful app can understand
> and process correctly.
Simon pointed out to me that what CDRF defines as profiles is something
different than a subset profile that could be used as an interop
specification, but the idea itself has merit I think, even when it's got
nothing to do with CDRF.
So, if you filter out the CDRF stuff from the list, how much call is
there for interop-between-different-standards?
--
Sander Marechal
