OF480620EC.0B2488D5-ON85257569.0058F959-85257569.005D68FA@lotus.com"
type="cite">
1) Eliminate the "conforming" class altogether, and use the existing
definition of the "extended" class (for producers and documents) as
the one and only conformance class/level. This would mean that
implementers would continue to have the same extensibility options
that they have had in prior versions of ODF.
This proposal was already considered. We also considered the exact
opposite, having only a single conformance class, which did not allow any
extensions at all. Their was consensus for neither proposal. The present
proposal is a compromise that gives two conformance clauses, one for each
use. This compromise had greater support than either of the single
conformance class proposals.
I have a feeling that if we did reopen discussion on this topic, we'd be
more likely to end up with a single conformance class that disallowed
extensions altogether than a single conformance class that allowed
extensions. To me it appears that allowing an "extended" conformance
class was a gracious concession. "Live and let live". Your ability to
have an "extended" conformance class does not interfere with someone
else's desire to have an unextended conformance class, and vice versa. If
you upset that compromise, and go for an absolutist "my way or the
highway" approach, the results might be even less acceptable to you.
That's my personal observation.
+1