[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Caution Flag on the Track
I think it might be good to step back and proceed under a caution flag here with regard to 1. Updating of normative references that potentially introduce breaking changes between versions of ODF 2. Ways to insulate/confine that sort of thing and also make it clearly visible to those who are implementing and or out to establish/confirm/verify conformance to a particular version of ODF. (At the least, it makes it clear that the differences are intentional and not by accident.) 3. There may need to be some careful statements about up-level anticipation and down-level accommodation. [This is not the first time the concern has come up for me, so I need to dig into my notes for something more specific. I just happened to notice it in Michael's observation about what may be more than editorial when citing a later version of a specification. It seems to me that the case Michael describes is benign, but all tumors deserve careful biopsy [;<) - Dennis Dennis E. Hamilton ------------------ NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org -----Original Message----- From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 01:01 To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Cc: office-comment@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office-comment] odf 1.1 dc:language value (unchanged as yet for 1.2) [ ... ] I agree, and I suggest that we remove the full paragraph containing the "similar" and references to RFC3066. It is not required any longer. Background: This paragraph first appeared in the ODF 1.0 specification and was not changed since when. In ODF 1.0 we referenced the first edition of the W3C XSD datatype specification. It defines a language datatype, but based on RFC1766, which is the predecessor of RFC3066. I assume we wanted to permit RFC3066 values, and for that reason could not use the XSD datatype, but had to define our own one. In ODF 1.1 we switched to the 2nd edition of the XSD datatype specification. In that 2nd edition, the language datatype permits the values defined by RFC3066. We therefor replaced our own definition of the language datatype with a reference to the XSD language datatype.But it seems we have overseen to remove the statements that did say what our old language datatype was. [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]