[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Proposal for an ODF 2.0 Requirements SC
"Warren Turkal" <turkal@google.com> wrote on 07/24/2008 05:16:07 PM: > > Why 1.2 instead of 1.3 or whatever? Is 2.0 going to be a backward > incompatible with 1.x? In other words, are we going to be removing > tags/attributes from the XML? > If there are specific questions that the TC wants the SC to research and provide recommendations on, we can add that to the Scope statement. For example: To propose a name for the next ODF revision, whether 1.3 or 2.0; To recommend whether the next version should be backwards compatible, or whether it may introduce incompatible changes; But if the TC believes that it knows the answer to that last question, then we can state that as constraints in the SC's scope: To ensure that the work recommended by the TC will not harm backwards compatibility, and in particular will avoid changes that do X, Y and Z. -Rob
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]