Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On 15/05/12 16:59, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Eike Rathke <erack@redhat.com> wrote:

So, what we could do is prepare two proposals, the clean incompatible
one and the ugly more compatible one ;-)  It's then up to the TC to
decide.

I think this is a sensible approach.  However, given how slow the TC
can be, I'm not sure if we can rely on them reaching a conclusion in
time for 3.6 (my guess would be "no").  I would rather we pick one
now, document it and use it. Then later when the TC decides what to do
in the standard, we'll adopt to that.

seems unrealistic for 3.6, yes.

I just don't want to set a dangerous precedent where an implementer
has to wait for the (quite time-consuming and slow-going)
standardization process in order to get a feature implemented.  I can
see similar situations popping up in the future, and I don't want the
standardization process to be the bottleneck.  Note that this is not
to bash the standard committee being slow.  That process is slow for a
reason, and it's probably better that way.  I'm just trying to avoid
setting undesirable precedents for similar situations that we will
undoubtedly encounter again.

the problem with doing that of course is that there is a high risk that
the ODF import will forever have to carry around ugly code to import
stuff that never made it into ODF.


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.