Content deleted Content added
m Proposed section ''Conformance with Ecma and proposed ISO Standards'' |
→Miscellaneous comments from Rick Jelliffe: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is the policy that is most relevant |
||
Line 351:
In the section "Criticism", should it be mentioned that Andy Updegrove is more than an "Attorney and open standards advocate"? He also is a lawyer representing OASIS, the standards organization behind ODF in his day job. The page [http://www.gesmer.com/practice_areas/consortium.php] says he "leads the consortium and standard setting practice group" of Gesmer Updegrove. The same page gives OASIS as a client. I suggest something like "[[Oasis-Open|OASIS]] Attorney and open standards advocate". Opinion from a disinterested attorney is legal advice; opinion from the attorney from a rival is something else, I would have thought. Can someone point me to whether there are Wikipedia guidelines about this aspect of links or citations? [[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] 13:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] is the key policy concerning sourcing/referencing/citing. [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] is its how-to guideline. But [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] is the policy that is most relevant to the the conflicting points of view that I am aware of that you are dealing with at the moment (other than [[WP:COI]], of course). You know me better as "Anonymous" but here I am [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add a section "Conformance with the Ecma and proposed ISO Standards". This section would summarize the conformance requirements from the Ecma and proposed ISO standard. It would clarify that "full implementation" is not a requirement for Ecma or ISO Conformance and provide references to the Conformance sections in the specs.It would also clarify the issue of whether "full implementation" was a requirement for conformance to the standard (i.e. whether an implementation that does not fully implement everything that Application A implements, it is still conformant) and point out that formal conformance with the standard does not in any way guarantee interoperability. For example, a word processor is not required to implement the spreadsheet parts; a word processor is not required to implement any parts outside the standard; and the word processor can decide which elements in the standard it will implement or not; all this and still be conformant. It would mention that formal compliance is largely in terms of a schema. It would mention the XSD and RELAX NG schemas. This would also balance the article, which has little about the actual compliance requirements of the standard, which is the kind of thing that a legal contract with a system integrator would require, for example. I would like to put an almost identical section for ODF. Standards have very clear conformance sections, and groups who mandate a standard may find that formal compliance provides more or less than they are expecting. (Disclosure: I converted the XSD schemas to RELAX NG for use in the proposed ISO OOXML standard. Another member of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 WG1, Murata Makoto, generated the NVRL schemas. We did this because RELAX NG and NVRL are both parts of the ISO DSDL multipart schema standard, which is what the WG1 committee encourages SC34 standards to use. ISO DSDL is the main technical alternative to the W3C XSD schema language that Microsoft and IBM base their current XML systems on. This is the kind of thing that working group membership entails, making sure that incoming and proposed standards fit in with the WG's technical direction. For example, ISO Schematron was previously specified with a DTD, and when it was standardized I made a RELAX NG schema for it. ODF also uses a RELAX NG schema. RELAX NG is a schema language that was fast-tracked from OASIS in WG1.) [[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] 14:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
| |||