OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Updated: (OFFICE-3026) Public Comment: Part 13.10.2 <config:config-item-set> too loose



     [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3026?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Robert Weir  updated OFFICE-3026:
---------------------------------


It is not clear to me that interoperability is better off with the proposed change.  Surely it is nature of the extension itself that effects interoperability, not whether we encode the extension in one place or another.

Also, it would be nice to see the proposal formulated in a more testable way.  For example "directly impact" is a bit loose.  Ditto for "impact document functionality" and "impact document layout". 

An example. Suppose for the aid of persons with poor vision, we want to store a "zoom factor" in the application settings.  It is set at 100%, 125%, 150%, etc.  It scales everything on the page proportionately.  This should have zero impact on interoperability, right?  The relative layout of objects will be identical, just magnified by a scaling factor.  But I think this would be disallowed by the proposed restriction.  Is that what we really want?

A different way to formulate this would be to talk about application settings of four classes:

1) Those that have the effect of contradicting existing ODF markup.  In other words, if you have an application setting that means, "If you see the underline attribute treat it like a overline attribute"

2) Those that duplicate but do not contradict existing ODF markup.  For example, an alternative way of specifying overlined text.

3) Those that define enhanced functionality for the structure, layout, appearance and behavior of document content, beyond what ODF defines.  For example, an application setting that indicates which of several line breaking algorithms should be used.

4) All other application settings.

I'd be happy forbidding the first class.  I would not object to the forbidding the 2nd class.  But I don't see any advantage to forbidding the 3rd class.



> Public Comment: Part 1 3.10.2 <config:config-item-set> too loose
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OFFICE-3026
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3026
>             Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: General, Public Review
>    Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 CD 05
>            Reporter: Dennis Hamilton
>             Fix For: ODF 1.2 CD 06
>
>
> The description is in the first attachment in the public comment posted at 
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201006/msg00071.html>
> The complete posted comment:
> <quote>
> The text describing the usage of config-item-sets has changed from ODF 1.1 to ODF 1.2 . It used to give examples of data to store in the config-item-sets, but these examples have been removed.
> Problem:
> In ODF 1.1 it was clear that the <config-item-set>-element was intended to be used to store application specific information such as zoom level and printer settings. So the element should be used to store settings that did not impact document layout nor document functionality. I would imagine that the reason for this element was to allow applications to store their individual settings as printer choice etc in the document - while still making sure that interoperability was not hurt (since these settings did not affect the document itself).
> However - this intention has somewhat failed, since not all vendors use this element exclusively for this purpose and several strategies for extending ODF has since emerged
> An example of "improper" extension of ODF (usage of <config-item-set>-element):
> OpenOffice.org stores a large number of settings that directly affect the document layout. These settings include (but are not limited to) "UseFormerLineSpacing", "AddParaTableSpacingAtStart",
> "IsKernAsianPunctuation", "CharacterCompressionType" etc. This is not the intended usage of the <config-item-set>-element since it directly affects the content of the document.
> An example of "proper" extension of ODF (usage of ODF extension mechanisms):
> Gnumeric defines a list of extensions to (primarily) ODF spreadsheets using the extension mechanisms of ODF. These include (but are not limited to) "gnm:GnmVAlign", "gnm:diagonal-bl-tr-line-style", "gnm:format-magic" etc. These are extensions to the functionality of ODF documents and they correctly use the extension mechanisms of ODF to do so.
> Further, ODF 1.2 introduces the notion of "extended documents" and this makes it even more important to be able to distinguish between documents that are extended and those that are not.
> Proposed solution:
> I propose to add the following to the specification:
> To 3.10.2 <config:config-item-set>:
> Add the following text:
> "The setting elements SHALL not contain settings that directly impact document functionality and SHALL not contain settings that impact document layout. Application settings that impact document functionality or impact document layout SHALL use the machanisms described in 21
> "Document Processing".
> Alternatively, add normatory, explanatory text to section 22.3.2 "OpenDocument Extended producers" clearly saying that any application using the <config:config-item-set>-element to store settings that affect document layout or functionality SHALL be labelled as an "Extended producer".
> Alternatively, add normatory, explanatory text to section 22.2.2 and 22.3.2:
> Documents using config-item-sets SHALL be of conformance class "OpenDocument extended documents" and Applications creating documents using config-item-sets SHALL be of conformance class "OpenDocument extended producers".
> </quote>

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]