Re: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Law of UnintendedConsequences

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

David,

On 01/20/09 19:52, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> I agree with you on almost all of your points, but I'd frame it 
> differently.
> 
> First, the use of XML provides extensibility.  This is an undeniable 
> benefit of the technology.  However, this is not the same as saying the 
> ODF standard should define conformance to allow extensions beyond the 
> schema defined by the standard.  These are two different things.  One does 
> not imply the other.

I agree to Rob here. No one is proposing to limit the extensibility of 
XML. We are only discussing if documents that extend beyond the schema 
may be still called OpenDocument documents.

And just to be clear: We are also not discussing to limit any other 
extensibility mechanasm that ODF defines. So, in particular the 
applications specific settings, will still remain.

> 
> You properly use the example of HTML as an format where useful extensions 
> have been made.  But when you look at the XHTML Recommendation, you'll 
> find that it only defines strict conformance, and in fact states that 
> mixing XHTML with other namespaces is not conformant (section 3.1.2). 
> Certainly the fact that XHTML does not allow extensions in conformant 
> documents has not prevented innovation?
> 
> We can't prevent extensions, and we shouldn't try, IMHO,  Extensions, at 
> least where the user has some control over where and when they are used, 
> are powerful tools. But the user does not have control if they think they 
> are using ODF but their word processor is putting undocumented, 
> incompatible and non-interoperable extensions into their documents. 

Again, I agree.
> 
> That said, I'd be less adverse to having both strict and loose conformance 
> classes if we also required that ODF Producers have a mode of operation 
> where they would create only strictly conformant documents.  Then that 
> puts the control back into the user's hands as to what mode they want to 
> operate in.

My current proposal has already a language for this. It says for a 
"Conforming Consumer"

(G1.2)It may create loosely conforming or conforming OpenDocument 
documents, but it shall have a mode of operation where all OpenDocument 
documents that are created are Conforming OpenDocument documents.

So, in both variants, a conforming producer must be able to store 
(strictly) conforming documents. The differences between the two 
variants of the proposal therefore are not as large as they may appear.

David, reading your other mails I believe your main consern is regarding 
the extensibility of styles. I will reply to this separately.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering