[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8
I'm assuming that the strictly-conforming document does exclude the office:meta "extensions" (that is, via the non-strict "any" provision) and the style:*-properties extensions (via the non-strict "any" provision). I would expect their continued occurrence would be at the conformable-document level and that this shouldn't disturb those who rely on them. I had hoped and presumed that there would be only one (normative) schema and a different, stricter schema would not be required (normative or not). It is surprising to hear that the RDF metadata extensions are seen as extensions of that sort. I thought we were viewing the RDF metadata extensions as extensions beyond ODF 1.1 (just as OpenFormula can be viewed as an extension) and they are not an extension at all in 1.2. All of the necessary schema and enabling element and attributes seem to be defined as part of ODF 1.2. Maybe we should just call it RDF Metadata from now on and integrate it into the document model appropriately, even though its occurrence is optional. Is the problem simply that we have been using extension in a different way than in OASIS parlance and we should simply clean up our nomenclature? - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00068.html Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 15:16 To: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8 In OASIS parlance, strict conformance means "conformance of an implementation that employs only the requirements and/or functionality defined in the specification and no more (i.e., no extensions to the specification are implemented). I'd take that to mean without namespace extensions of course, but also without RDF metadata extensions, without office:meta extensions, without style:*properties extensions, etc. It is probably worth preserving (or at least reserving) "strict" for that designation, even if we don't formally put it in release 1.2. Or think of it this way, if we allowed some kinds of extensions in strict, then what do we call a document that has no extensions? -Rob [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]