RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Out of curiosity, if strict were reserved for the one that means with no
extensions, what do you see that as leaving out?

I would think that the <style:*-properties> and metadata foreign elements
are handled in the outer level either way (although I don't think the
recommendation as to their preservation is wise.)

Do you agree with Rob that this would exclude the RDF metadata?  I can't see
why.  I don't think RDF's provision for arbitrary vocabulary is thought by
anyone to be an extension of RDF.  This notion of extensibility does not
strike me as an extension of RDF, it is the very nature of RDF.

Or would strict conformance exclude the use of table:formula values with
prefixes from QNames of foreign namespaces?  Similarly for scripts?  If
pressed, I would have to agree that those are extension points built into
the specification.  I'm not sure which way someone who wants to have a
strict ODF document would decide on this one.

If you say that is the problem, I will abandon my preference of "strict
conformance" as ours to define.

Bob?

 - Dennis

PS: Bob, I add you to these questions because I don't know, for the single
level that is the only one you are interested in, whether the things I'm
asking about are included or excluded in your view.  Do you currently grant
variances for certain namespaces or processors or do you regard the rules
for RDF metadata and for the QName prefixes in table:formula and script
codes as allowing permissible extensions, along with the
<style:*-properties> and the metadata ones.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 04:03
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: 'OpenDocument Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8

Hi Dennis,

On 05.02.09 21:14, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Michael,
> 

> 3. I don't like the names very much, but that may be just me.

I agree to Rob that we should reserve the term "strict" for something
that may even be more strict than what we have today.

The term "host language conformance" is a term that is used in other
standards, too, and that very well characterizes this conformance level,
without having to interpret terms like "strict" or "loose", which can
have many meanings. So, why not use an established and "speaking" term 
here? Our charter says we should borrow from existing standards where 
possible. Why not use a term that is used in other standards, too?

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





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php