Re: [tdf-discuss] LibO document format: strict ODF or extended ODF?

Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> Il 01/11/2010 23.51, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:
> > So I guess moving on&  extending ODF is a feature, not a bug - of
> > course, for those who need it, you want a "strict mode" (which we
> > have).
>
> Extending ODF *in agreement with* at least two other vendors is a
> feature, because you're reasonably sure that feature will be
> implemented in ODF specification.
Hi Gianluca,

yeah, that was implied - having two other vendors on board is the
best way to get enough votes for your additions in the ODF TC.

> Simply extending ODF (with good features, of course) on a vendor
> basis is just fragmentation, IMO.
A healthy dose of vendor-specific extensions is one of the hallmarks
of a working ecosystem, if you ask me - at least if you want for ODF
to be the default document format. ;)

Fragmentation is only a problem, if you end up with lock-in - maybe
an opportunity for ODF Next to re-evaluate its mechanisms for
extensibility & fallbacks.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***