- From: marbux <marbux@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:26:16 -0800
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Cc: Markdown List <public-markdown@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote: > paul, > > > Le 29 nov. 2012 à 03:41, marbux a écrit : >> On the wiki, I've added a definition of "interoperability." >> <http://www.w3.org/community/markdown/wiki/Glossary#Terminology>. > > Not sure what is the purpose of it for the topic at stake but if you are interested by the topic then I encourage you to read the following. It should keep you busy for a week or two ;) > > http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ > http://www.w3.org/TR/spec-variability/ > http://www.w3.org/wiki/QA > http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary Thanks, Karl, but I'm already familiar with all of those. Very useful documents. A bit about my background: My first career was in typography, where electronic word processing technology was first successfully commercialized. The last word processor I used in my life that was interoperable with word processors from other companies punched 6-bit paper tape in the Teletypesetter ("TTS") 6-bit format, a telegraphy code first introduced in 1928 for the Associated Press wire news service. The newspaper industry had already fully deployed this inherently digital format, which made the industry an attractive market for electronic automation. My typography career spanned the period from before the use of computers --- when the "markup language" was still a handwritten language that had evolved over some 500 years since Gutenburg's invention of movable type -- through the introduction of area composition using computer-driven phototypesetters. I did a career switch after 20+ years of that and practiced law until I retired. After I retired, I returned to the mystery of why there are no interoperable word processors and began studying international law, U.S. law, and E.U. law governing IT standards and government technical specifications with a heavy emphasis on interoperability aspects. None of which, of course, can be applied without some understanding of the technical aspects and methods. So I've had a fair bit of involvement with development of software technical specifications. My understanding of the technical side does not run nearly as deep as my familiarity with the relevant law, but I'm still able to make the occasional technical contribution along my way toward more interoperable software. I think having a solid definition of interoperability to build from is quite important, particularly when working within the W3C, where very few of its recommendations are sufficiently specified to enable interoperability and where many folk with a technical background have incorrect understandings of what interoperability is. Having properly defined it gives us a solid foundation for writing tests and a specification to achieve it. Best regards, Paul
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 03:26:44 UTC