office message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Action required: OpenDocument v1.0 Second EditionDraft 28 (revised)
- From: "Mason, James David (MXM)" <masonjd@y12.doe.gov>
- To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com,"OASIS Office" <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:52:14 -0400
Rob
says:
If we do this, I'd like us to also write up and adopt a formal
deprecation policy for the TC -- what does it mean, how is it decided, is
support ever removed entirely, etc. Deprecation is a powerful thing and
useful for maintaining the health of the specification. But like forest
fires, we need to consider carefully how and when we use them.
As
Patrick knows, I'm very cautious about things that impact backwards
compatibility. It's necessary, particularly when you have a new standard, and
you know there might be bugs in it, not to break things for early adopters. But
our experience with SGML was that backwards compatibility became a stumbling
block to updates, so that the developers of XML picked up and moved to the W3C
rather than stay in ISO and constantly run into a brick wall. (Of course some of
them then moved from the W3C to OASIS and then brought their work back to ISO in
the case of RELAX NG.)
I've
argued in favor of backwards compatibility to XTM 1.0 in XTM 2.0, but I don't
think I'd argue for such things in SGML any more (I just sent Patrick the source
of an ISO Technical Report that was marked up in GML, and I don't think anybody
would argue in favor of supporting some of the constructs there
today).
Jim
Mason
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]