[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: ODF 1.2 Version Significance Proposal - UPDATE 4
This is the fourth response to review of the Version Significance Proposal. Update #1 on the beginning of the proposed text is at <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00076.html>. Update #2 on when ODF 1.2 documents are also compatible with earlier specifications is at <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00077.html>. Update #3 on deleting a paragraph no longer needed after Update #2 is at <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00078.html>. I will incorporate the restatements in the proposal at <http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/ODF_1.2_Version_Significance>. I will produce a recap that combines all of these updates as the revised draft. WHEN SOME OR ALL OF THE office:version ATTRIBUTES ARE FOR OTHER VERSIONS [January 5 proposed text (in wikiText format)[ When an office:version-requiring element has office:version="1.1" the element and its content are based on the OpenDocument v1.1 specification [ODF11]. For office:version="1.0" the element and its content are based on the OpenDocument v1.0 specification [ODF10]. When an office:version-requiring element has office:version omitted, the element is based on a version of the OpenDocument specification earlier than ODF 1.2. Any treatment of these cases in accordance with the earlier ODF specifications by an implementation that supports ODF 1.2 is implementation-specific. When an office:version-requiring element has an office:version attribute with value other than one of "1.0", "1.1", and "1.2", the element and its content are based on an OpenDocument specification later than ODF 1.2. Any treatment in accordance with such specifications by an implementation that supports ODF 1.2 is implementation-specific. ]] COMMENTS: > When an office:version-requiring element has office:version="1.1" the element and its content are based on the OpenDocument v1.1 specification [ODF11]. > For office:version="1.0" the element and its content are based on the > OpenDocument v1.0 specification [ODF10]. > When an office:version-requiring element has office:version omitted, > the element is based on a version of the OpenDocument specification > earlier than ODF 1.2. These all are observations that repeat what we say in the ODF 1.0 and 1.1 specifications. Like above, I have no objections to have these as notes, but I think we must not have these as normative statements. I know that we have a similar language in the current specification. I consider this to be an error, too. > Any treatment of these cases in accordance with the earlier ODF > specifications by an implementation that supports ODF 1.2 is > implementation-specific. This essentially says what I have added as comment above, so maybe we can take this is basis for an informative note. > > When an office:version-requiring element has an office:version attribute with value other than one of "1.0", "1.1", and "1.2", the element and its content are based on an OpenDocument specification later than ODF 1.2. Any treatment in accordance with such specifications by an implementation that supports ODF 1.2 is implementation-specific. Regarding future versions, I think we have to differ between two things. First, what does an application that supports ODF 1.2 if it is asked to process a document that identifies itself as a document that conforms to a new version of ODF? This indeed is implementation specific. The application may have an implementation for that ODF version and it may take that. Or it may just try to read the document anyway. We should not make any assumptions here. RESPONSE: This portion of the Version Significance Proposal was designed to catch the cases where any of (but not necessarily all) of the office:version-requiring elements has something other than office:version="1.2". The restatement does not refer to processors and implementations and simply points out, via a note, that those are not ODF 1.2 Documents. (A note on treating such documents as if they are ODF 1.2 documents is discussed with UPDATE 5.) RESTATEMENT: [January 9 proposed text (in wikiText format)[ '''Note:''' When an office:version-requiring element has office:version="1.1" the element and its content are based on the OpenDocument v1.1 specification [ODF11]. For office:version="1.0" the element and its content are based on the OpenDocument v1.0 specification [ODF10]. When an office:version-requiring element has office:version omitted, the element is based on a version of the OpenDocument specification earlier than ODF 1.2. When an office:version-requiring element has an office:version attribute with value other than one of "1.0", "1.1", and "1.2", the element and its content are based on an OpenDocument specification later than ODF 1.2. In none of these cases do the elements comprise an ODF 1.2 document. ]] - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00041.html Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 05:24 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: 'ODF TC List'; Rob Weir Subject: Re: [office] ODF 1.2 Version Significance Proposal Hi Dennis, thank you very much for the proposal. Please find a couple of comments/suggestions below: On 05.01.09 01:24, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00011.html [ ... ] > > When an office:version-requiring element has office:version="1.1" the element and its content are based on the OpenDocument v1.1 specification [ODF11]. > For office:version="1.0" the element and its content are based on the > OpenDocument v1.0 specification [ODF10]. > When an office:version-requiring element has office:version omitted, > the element is based on a version of the OpenDocument specification > earlier than ODF 1.2. These all are observations that repeat what we say in the ODF 1.0 and 1.1 specifications. Like above, I have no objections to have these as notes, but I think we must not have these as normative statements. I know that we have a similar language in the current specification. I consider this to be an error, too. > Any treatment of these cases in accordance with the earlier ODF > specifications by an implementation that supports ODF 1.2 is > implementation-specific. This essentially says what I have added as comment above, so maybe we can take this is basis for an informative note. > > When an office:version-requiring element has an office:version attribute with value other than one of "1.0", "1.1", and "1.2", the element and its content are based on an OpenDocument specification later than ODF 1.2. Any treatment in accordance with such specifications by an implementation that supports ODF 1.2 is implementation-specific. Regarding future versions, I think we have to differ between two things. First, what does an application that supports ODF 1.2 if it is asked to process a document that identifies itself as a document that conforms to a new version of ODF? This indeed is implementation specific. The application may have an implementation for that ODF version and it may take that. Or it may just try to read the document anyway. We should not make any assumptions here. [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]