Re: [office-accessibility] Fwd: [office] OpenDocument v1.1/v1.2compatibility

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Dave,

Dave Pawson wrote:
> On 27/10/06, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> <Michael.Brauer@sun.com> wrote:
>> Dave Pawson wrote:
>> > I'm trying to work out how this might impact Accessibility.
>> >
>> > E.g. Rich and his (non) tables. Would we be able to get
>> > that through with this rule in place?
>>
>> Why not? Regardless whether it is a new feature or not, a schema for
>> tables in presentations in my point of view is of great advantage for
>> ODF users. Therefore, we should add it.
> 
> 
> 
> One more from last night's telcon Michael.
> 
> Scenario.
> 
> After 1.2 published.
> 
> 
> I receive a document.
> I need to tell if it is 1.1 or 1.2
> 
> I don't think there is any information in the xml to say which schema it
> is valid to (Or I couldn't find any). I think this is needed for xml 
> processing.

There actually is the version attribute described in section 2.1.2.

> Is this true?

You need it if you want to validate documents against the schema of a 
specific version, that's true. You should not need it most other cases.


> 
> If it is added, will your proposal still be valid?

Yes, it will. But maybe there is some misunderstanding. My proposal is 
not a proposal for defining conformance in OpenDocument v1.2 itself. But 
it is a proposal for guidelines which extensions we should accept for 
ODF 1.2, and which require a deeper discussion before we know whether we 
accept them for ODF 1.2.

Michael