[OpenISO] OOXML ballot comments and Reference Implementations

[Std Lib0]

Maybe I should be a bit moreexplicit about the reference implementation bit.

>From the Core Guidelines draft:
> Maturity requirements include that there should be a BSD-, Apache- or
> LGPL-licensed reference implementation and that the spec has been
> reviewed for cross-cultural applicability and with regard to its
> impact on people with disabilities.

It looks like the expression 'reference implementation' may be a bit
misleading in the Core Guidelines, since it means something different for
ISO (see below). A reference implementation in ISO is some 'official' code
that could replace a written standard, but they prefer documentation over
reference implementation, probably because a code might convey unintended
information implicitly.

In the CoreGuidelines of openISO, we probably want to say just
'implementation', meaning some efficient implementation by someone just to
prove the feasibility of the standard, but not to be used as an official
reference for the standard.


On 9/15/07, Std Lib0 <stdlib0 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> There's an interesting recent discussion on OOXML ballot at
> Alex Brown's (ISO BRM Convenor) blog:
> http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=07&m=09&entry=entry070909-104641
>
> An interesting quote:
>
> "ISO rules forbid reference implementations. The thinking is that the text
> must itself by complete, self-contained, and authoritative; a reference
> implementation opens the possibility of deviation from the text, thereby
> creating uncertainty about which is "right".
>
> That said, in SC34, we follow the practice of informally requiring that
> our "home-grown" standards (RELAX NG, NVDL, Schematron etc) are proved
> efficiently implementable during standardisation. If my time wasn't so taken
> up with DIS 29500 I would be working on an implementation of DTLL in Java to
> accompany the draft standard, for example!"
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://OpenISO.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070916/09503e73/attachment.htm