Re: [office] auto-play presentation file format like PPS

["Warren Turkal" <turkal@google.com>]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ming Fei Jia <jiamingf@cn.ibm.com> wrote:
> Re: [office] auto-play presentation file format like PPS
>  <jmf>
>  I understand the "auto" you mean is different from mine. My "auto"
> emphasizes the launching application by a shortcut way. Your "auto" means
> play the slides automatically upon open. But you should know the behavior of
> MS PPS file, when open the PPS file via a shortcut way, it just enters
> "play" status, you need to play the slides by press the enter or some other
> triggered ways, not "automatically" as you described.

What are the differences between this "triggered" play mode and the
readonly mode?

> What we want is the
> "play" status like PPS. As to how the slide is played, "automatically" or
> "manually" should not be what we are talking about. We want to define a
> preferred view mode.

If I am interpreting this statement correctly. You are asking for
details about how a slide is presented during play. For instance, you
want the ability to express something like "goto slide 1, play some
sound, wait 30 sec, goto slide 2, wait 30 sec, etc." Is that correct?
If that is what you are wanting, the preferred view mode shouldn't
have anything to do with that problem.

> Right...and a
> Also something like "presentation-auto-play" was
> already defined as one attribute of presentation in the original proposal,
> but you know, after discussion, we all agreed to move that out of
> presentation layer to more generic layer. In this generic layer, it is not
> reasonable to mark "presentation" tag on the view mode name although we know
> it might be only meaningful for presentation now.

I don't remember agreeing that the auto-play mode would be defined for
anything but presentations. There has clearly been a breakdown in
communications (possibly only on my side), and I think we might need
to address that before we can productively move on.

> Cannot we say "play" a
> meta file? What's more, if we think "readonly" might be only for word
> processor, can we say the attribute name as "word-processor-readonly"?
>  </jmf>

I never claimed that readonly was only for the word processor. I think
it is sufficiently generic to apply to all document types. So far only
"readonly" and "edit" are the only preferred-view-modes that are
sufficiently generic to apply to all docs..

>  <jmf>
>  As my understanding of "auto", it is relevant to interpreting the author's
> preference. As your understanding, it is irrelevant.

I think its pretty clear that the OS launcher can use the information
to launch the doc in some special way. I don't think we need to
describe that in the standard at all. That's why it's not relevant. We
aren't defining UI.

> But it does not matter,
> it is OK since we know what the actual is.
>  </jmf>

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Please clarify.

>  <jmf>
>  This surely is a problem. Maybe any specification will meet such problem,
> generally we can not have bias to prefer specific products. But we have to
> prefer the existed users and the existed documents. This may be why ISO
> approved OOXML as a standard although many people opposed. BTW, Okular
> should be a viewer that mainly supports PDF.
>  </jmf>

I wasn't attempting to start a discussion of which formats Okular
prefers, which really doesn't matter. The point is to show that there
is no reasonable default for a preferred-view-mode. I don't think
there's anything wrong with the spec saying that the lack of a
preferred-view-mode should be interpreted in an application specific
manner. For an OS launcher, this probably means falling back to a
default for the mimetype or extension, which is just fine. You just
have to remember the following: if there is no preferred-view-mode in
a document, we cannot just make up whatever we want for that value.
It's simply data we don't have. Further, it's ok not to have that
data.

>  I think we need to figure this out because we really should have a
>  schema that someone could use to validate an ODF document. If the
>  schema doesn't represent an actual document spec, then what is the
>  point?
>  <jmf>
>  How about we just put "view" value there as a placeholder besides the
> definite view mode,"edit","play" and "readonly"?
>  </jmf>

I don't think this does anything to address my concern.

wt