[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Systematic faults in normative presentation of content models (ODF 1.2 CD01)
Dear all, The presentation of elements (currently the monospaced text on a peach-coloured background) within ODF 1.2 CD01 is a big step backward from previous versions, and needs to be revisited. Consider the first time this happens, in 2.2.2 ----b The <office:document> element is a root element. The <office:document> element may be used with the following elements: <db:component> 11.3.5 and <draw:object> 9.4.5.2. The <office:document> element may have the following attributes: grddl:transformation 18.327, office:mimetype 18.382 and office:version 18.392. The <office:document> element may have the following child elements: <office:automatic-styles> 2.16.3, <office:body> 2.4, <office:font-face-decls> 2.15, <office:master-styles> 2.16.4, <office:meta> 2.3, <office:scripts> 2.13, <office:settings> 2.11 and <office:styles> 2.16.2. ----e The problems with this are: 1. It is verbose and very difficult to read. Later in the spec we have whole half-pages containing solid blocks of similar content. 2. It is casually worded to the point of being meaningless: what does it mean that an element "may be used with" another element, e.g.? 3. It contradicts the schema. The text above says this element *may* have the office:mimetype attribute, yet the schema declares this element *shall* have this attribute. Similarly, it is stated above that the element *may* have certain children element which, according to the schema, are mandatory. A consequence of this systematic fault is that a large portion of the normative content of this draft is, simply, *wrong*. Any normative statement of an element's grammar (which is what this is) should be made using a clear, terse, and unambiguous notation. SC 34 has standardised RELAX NG compact syntax expressly for this purpose. The ODF spec should be re-written to use RNG compact syntax to express the normative content models of XML elements. This RNG should be part-normalized to eliminate opaque patterns and bring actual element and attribute declarations to the fore. Ideally each mentioned element/attribute name should then be hyperlinked to its corresponding description in the spec. - Alex.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]