On Tuesday 1. July 2008 09:26:10 David Gerard wrote:
> Surely it's inherently problematic behaviour and its
> direct encouragement of failure of interoperability has been
> explained. Is there any actual useful reason to encourage it, thus
> constructing a loophole the size of an eight-lane freeway tunnel?
Apart from the fact that this indeed is something for the ODF-TC and not for
this list, I'd like to respond to the two points above.
First you are making a conclusion that extensibility is bad due to a convicted
monopolist using its monopolistic position and forcing extensions on others.
You seem to assume that
a) this will likely happen again
b) there are no valid reasons to have extensions for anyone.
I think that if you do some more market research you will find both of your
assumptions to be false.
There are indeed lots of valid reasons to have extentions, and be aware of the
claim in the ODF spec that you should use ODF specified tags when they exist.
If you indeed want to make a proposal to the ODF TC I suggest you research
your case a bit more ;)
But, please, consider this off-topic on this list as Rob pointed out we can
not change the ODF specification here, so arguing will not really help
anyone.
--
Thomas Zander
