OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: ODF 1.2 Version Significance Proposal - UPDATE 5 + DISCUSSION


This is the fifth response to review of the Version Significance Proposal.  I also offer some discussion about the appropriateness of the replacement wording that I provide here, and how it fits with the under-development conformance clauses.  Please review those considerations (starting at DISCUSSION), below.

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>.

Update #4 on when some or all of the parts have office:version different than "1.2"
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00079.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.   


ON PROCESSING NON-1.2 DOCUMENTS AS ODF 1.2

[January 5 proposed text (in wikiText format)[
In any case where an apparent ODF document is not specifically an ODF 1.2 document based on the required occurrences of office:version attributes, an ODF 1.2 implementation MAY process the document as if it is an ODF 1.2 document:
   * In doing so, the implementation SHOULD behave as if the requisite office:version="1.2" attributes are present. 
   * Any elements and attributes based on earlier versions of ODF that are incompatible with the corresponding ODF 1.2 features NEED NOT be accepted.  If the incompatible form is accepted, it SHALL be accepted as if cast into an equivalent but ODF 1.2-compatible substitute form.
   * Any elements and attributes that are not defined for ODF 1.2, even though occurring in XML namespaces defined for use in ODF 1.2 documents, SHOULD be treated in accordance with the rules for foreign elements and attributes.
]]

COMMENTS:

The other question is what happens if such a document is read by an ODF 
1.2 implementation. For this case I think we should have some clear 
statements what happens with elements and attributes not defined by ODF 
1.2. I have added some language for this to my recent conformance clause 
proposal. I think we should align your suggestions below with what I 
have in the conformance clause proposal. What seems to be essential to 
me to note for the version attribute is that an conforming consumer is 
allowed to consume documents that have other version attribute values 
than "1.2", and that it in this case should behave as if the attribute 
value is "1.2". This is your first item below.

RESPONSE:

I agree with this.  I also had in mind that an ODF 1.2 implementation should not blindly treat an earlier feature for which 1.2 makes a breaking change as if it is the 1.2 form without making any adjustment.

I agree that this and the conformance section need to be reconciled, perhaps in both directions, as the conformance section is expanded and tightened.  In particular, treating unknown (or unsupported) elements and attributes in ODF namespaces as if they are foreign elements and attributes seems to be an important case that we should not allow to fall through the cracks.  I believe this is common behavior of implementations.

DISCUSSION:

I am concerned about the normative language here.  I removed the SHALL clause from the original statement because it seemed too rigid.  I am also concerned about the statement that I have added concerning "Subsequent processing."  The idea is that anything that sees the light of day after the document is accepted in this manner reflects the derived ODF 1.2 document.  The odd case is with regard to keeping foreign elements that are identified with ODF 1.2-recognized namespaces but do not appear to be for ODF 1.2.  I am not clear that the guidance on retaining such elements should be followed.  I propose leaving this statement as written until we have more time to spend reconciling the conformance clauses for ODF 1.2.

RESTATEMENT:

[January 10 proposed text (in wikiText format)[
In any case where an apparent ODF document does not provide the office:version attributes and values required for ODF 1.2 documents, an ODF 1.2 implementation MAY process the document as if it is an ODF 1.2 document:
   * In doing so, the implementation SHOULD behave as if the requisite office:version="1.2" attributes are present. 
   * Any elements and attributes based on earlier versions of ODF for which the same-named ODF 1.2 feature are incompatible NEED NOT be accepted.  If accepted, an ODF 1.2-incompatible feature SHOULD be cast into an equivalent but ODF 1.2-compatible form.    See Appendix H, Changes From Previous Specification Versions (Non-Normative), as well as previous specifications and any approved errata for them.
   * Any elements and attributes that are neither recognized, accepted, nor supported by the implementation, even though identified in XML namespaces defined for use in ODF 1.2 documents, SHOULD be treated in accordance with the rules for foreign elements and attributes (section 1.4). 
   * Subsequent processing SHOULD be as if the accepted document were exactly the ODF 1.2 document derived in this way. 

[Note to Editor: These section numbers and (corrected) Appendix letters correspond to those of OpenDocument-v1.2-draft7-13.odt and may need to be reviewed and adjusted to apply to subsequent drafts.]
]]

 - 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
[ ... ]
The other question is what happens if such a document is read by an ODF 
1.2 implementation. For this case I think we should have some clear 
statements what happens with elements and attributes not defined by ODF 
1.2. I have added some language for this to my recent conformance clause 
proposal. I think we should align your suggestions below with what I 
have in the conformance clause proposal. What seems to be essential to 
me to note for the version attribute is that an conforming consumer is 
allowed to consume documents that have other version attribute values 
than "1.2", and that it in this case should behave as if the attribute 
value is "1.2". This is your first item below.

> 
> In any case where an apparent ODF document is not specifically an ODF 1.2 document based on the required occurrences of office:version attributes, an ODF 1.2 implementation MAY process the document as if it is an ODF 1.2 document:
>   * In doing so, the implementation SHOULD behave as if the requisite office:version="1.2" attributes are present. 
>   * Any elements and attributes based on earlier versions of ODF that are incompatible with the corresponding ODF 1.2 features NEED NOT be accepted.  If the incompatible form is accepted, it SHALL be accepted as if cast into an equivalent but ODF 1.2-compatible substitute form.
>   * Any elements and attributes that are not defined for ODF 1.2, even though occurring in XML namespaces defined for use in ODF 1.2 documents, SHOULD be treated in accordance with the rules for foreign elements and attributes. 
> 
[ ... ]



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]