[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: FW: [office] Discussion Requested - Version Identification at theFeature Level
I agree that this would be useful to have. I wonder if we could do something like what we have in Appendix D 'Core Feature Sets' ? In other words, list all of the section/subsection numbers along with what version ODF introduced or substantially changed that feature. The assumption is that new features are introduced into new subsections. This may be a bad assumption. -Rob "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 10/13/2008 11:50:54 AM: > > I request discussion of this proposal on the next (October 20) TC > Coordination Call > > If there are other things I should do beyond making the proposal in > e-mail (Wiki, document storage), please let me know and I will do > that also. It is time I learned. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00114.html > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 09:35 > To: ODF TC List > Subject: [office] Proposal: Version Identification at the Feature Level > > I notice that there are changes in substance among the features of > ODF, especially with additions and changes being considered for ODF 1.2. > > OBJECTIVE > > I believe we should consider a version-identification scheme within > the specification that identifies when a provision entered ODF and > when a provision's status or description last had any material (non- > editorial) change. > > It would take some effort to introduce such information for the > first time, but I think the sooner this is done the better. Also, > because of the major reorganization in ODF 1.2, this would be > extremely useful to implementers, those interested in interchange > agreements, and those wanting an easy way to determine what has been > changed or added. > > STRAW MAN > > In the section where a feature is described, two version numbers are > provided, one for the ODF edition when the feature was introduced, > one for the latest ODF version in which the status changed (default > is when the feature was introduced). > > Ideally, the feature level is that of specific attribute usage > (understanding that the same name of attribute can have different > usages based on the element where the attribute can occur). > > The next level is the element. We need an approach around what > changes in attributes and content (including contained elements) > constitute a change at the element level. > > Straw Straw Man: I think for elements, version-impacting changes > should be ones where required attributes are added or removed and > where optional attributes have defaults that are different than > before the attribute was introduced for the element. Subordinate > elements should be considered impacting the element on the same > basis. Other changes to the element's attributes and subordinate > elements are tracked at those levels. > > SIMPLIFICATION: We could simplify this by allowing ODF 1.0 feature- > introduction to be assumed by default, not having to be more- > specific for any of those until a substantial change to the feature > is introduced. Likewise, the OpenFormula volume could have its > feature versions defaulted at the ODF 1.2 level. > > FURTHER DISCUSSION > > It is important to have a way for developers and others to be able > to determine what's new and different at the feature level. It is > also valuable for developers and those concerned with interchange > arrangements to understand what might be involved in supporting > legacy ODF documents and legacy features (some of which may have > been deprecated or changed in later versions of the ODF specification). > > I've noticed for some time how valuable the feature-level version > information is for the Java API. The Java specifications identify > the version in which each API element was introduced. Adopting a > similar device seems important in bringing attention to the > introduction of changes. Using a pair of version numbers seems > appropriate so long as material changes, such as deprecation, can > occur to previously-specified features. > > This is also valuable in the maintenance and review of the > specifications. Although editorial work is involved, the only way > to minimize it, if done at all, is sooner rather than later. > > - 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]