[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Re: ODF Conformance
Hi David, On 09.02.09 12:03, David Faure wrote: > On Monday 09 February 2009, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> wouldn't it be an option to store the formatting properties in question >> as application settings? This would clearly identify them as being >> application specific. You may use the name of the style in the settings >> to identify the style to which them belong. And to identify a frame, you >> can use either its name, or its xml:id. > > OK, why not. > > I'd like to note that any of the "harmful" extensions people have thought of, > and are trying to prevent, can also be done this way ;-) > Well, this is true. Actually, we cannot prevent that applications use particular features in unintended and 'harmful' ways. The difference is however that we do not make any statement what the intended use of foreign elements and attributes are. One can used them for any purpose, and everything would be permitted. Regarding the <*-properties> elements: The reasons the current proposal does not allow them within the "stricter" conformance class has different reasons than dis-allowing them anywhere else: First, I think that application settings actually are more suitable to keep application specific formatting properties. And second: ODF 1.1 did already differ between documents that allow any content in formatting properties and those that do not by providing two schemas. Keeping this separation would result in three conformance classes, and two schemas, which would make the overall situation even more complex. The non-strict schemas as it is further has the issue that is does not validate anything within <*-properties> elements, not even the attributes that ODF defines itself. So, dis-allowing foreign attributes and elements in <*-properties> elements is actually an attempt to improve validation and make make things less complex. Having that said: If it would turn out that application settings are not sufficient to cover the past possibilities of foreign attributes and elements in <*-properties>, then I would have no objections to define an extension mechanism there. But I would do so as feature of <*-properties> elements, rather than as part of a "loose" conformance definition. 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]