Re: [office] Regarding Conformance Clauses

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

Hi Dennis,

On 01/20/09 18:24, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Thanks for this summary.
> 
> The language I would like to see retained, even if there is no
> loosely-conforming category, is a definition of foreign elements with the
> agreed rules on how they MAY be accepted, and what SHOULD be done when they
> are accepted and not understood by a conformant processor.

Sorry, but which language in the ODF 1.1 spec are you referring to? 
Which statement in the current proposals is unclear in this regard?

> 
> In addition, I would like to see a clause that suggests that conformant
> processors SHOULD treat those conformant-document elements and attributes
> that are not supported by a conformant implementation as foreign.  (At the
> moment, we simply say nothing about this case.)

What we say is "(P1.3) It [a conforming consumer] shall be able to parse 
any conforming OpenDocument documents, but it need not interpret the 
semantics of all elements, attributes and attribute values."

What is missing?

> 
> I have no problem with there being a single schema that is the same as what
> the strict schema is intended to accomplish.  I think that is a good idea.
> It would be much cleaner and understandable.

Best regards

Michael


> 
>  - Dennis
> 
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 07:09
> To: OpenDocument Mailing List
> Subject: [office] Regarding Conformance Clauses
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 1. The only extension point that ODF 1.1 has that is effected by my 
> conformance clause proposals are foreign elements and attributes, that 
> is, elements and attributes that are not defined by the ODF 
> specification, and that may be mixed with ODF elements. Other extension 
> points are not covered by the proposal.
> 
> 2. Both proposals define a conforming document as one that does not 
> contain any foreign elements and attributes. Both proposal require that 
> a conforming ODF producer is able to produce conforming documents, and 
> both proposals say that a conforming consumer should able to parse 
> documents that contain foreign elements (The last should could be turned 
> into a shall if this is the concern). So, the only (intended) 
> differences between the two proposals are that in the first one, a 
> document that contains foreign elements or attributes may be called a 
> "loosely conforming ODF document", and that a conforming producer may 
> create loosely conforming document in addition to conforming ones.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 3. ODF 1.1 defines two schemas, a strict schema and a non-strict schema. 
> The difference between the two schemas is that the non-strict schema 
> allows arbitrary elements and attributes within <office:meta> and the 
> <style:*-properties> elements, while the strict schema does not. This 
> means that an ODF 1.1 document that validates against the strict schema 
> does not contain any foreign elements, while one that does validate 
> against the non-strict schema may contain foreign elements within 
> <office:meta> and  the <style:*-properties> elements. Since ODF 1.1 
> allows foreign elements and attributes anywhere, the non-strict schema 
> actually would not have been required. To make things simpler, I would 
> suggest that we define a single schema for ODF 1.2.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 


-- 
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