Re: [office] Version Attribute Proposal

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 24/11/06, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg

> Dave (Pawson) noticed that the attribute is optional, and that ODF 1.2
> document therefore may not identify themselves as such. I agree to him
> that the version attribute should be mandatory for ODF 1.2 documents,
> and therefore propose that we change the description and schema as follows:
>
>  > All root elements take an office:version attribute, which indicates
>  > which version of this specification it complies with.
>  >
>  > An application that stores a document conforming to this application
>  > *shall* use the attribute value "1.2".
>  >
> op> <define name="office-document-common-attrs" combine="interleave">
>  >   <optional>
>  >     <attribute name="office:version" a:defaultValue="1.1">
>  >       <choice>
>  >         <value>1.0</value>
>  >         <value>1.1</value>
>  >         <value>1.2</value>
>  >         <ref name="string">
>  >            <param name="pattern">[1-9]+\.[0-9]+</param>
>  >         </ref>
>  >       </choice>
>  >     </attribute>
>  >   </optional>
>  > </define>
>
> Some notes:
> - In order to achieve that ODF 1.0/1.2 remain valid ODF 1.2 instances, I
>    have kept the attribute optional in the schema. The description
>    however states that the attribute actually is mandatory for ODF 1.2
>    documents.

I don't agree with keeping it optional.
That would imply forward compatibility, which is clearly impossible to operate.
If that is wanted, I'd suggest wording as used in XSLT from W3C.
If a processor for version X meets a version >X then its response is undefined.





> - I have kept the possibility to use arbitrary version numbers in the
>    schema. This shall allow to validate future document against the
>    schema, if they don't use any new features. I'm not sure we need that.
> - I have removed the sentences regarding validation, because it is
>    obvious and not specific to OpenDocument that documents could be
>    validated.

But the 'optional' schema value makes it unverifiable?

I would like to make it easy to verify compliance to a revision of the spec,
not impossible?

regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk