[OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OFFICE-3026) Public Comment: Part1 3.10.2 <config:config-item-set> too loose

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3026?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=22007#action_22007 ] 

Dennis Hamilton commented on OFFICE-3026:
-----------------------------------------

I would rather not go there, since the foreign-element/attribute distinction doesn't even work in the settings, since they are already all foreign.

With regard to purple documents, I can see there being a provision like that IN A CONSUMER to deal with certain visual difficulties, just like having magnifiers, zooming, and other accessibility provisions.

Whether that should be recorded in the document is a different matter.

Considering that it might be desirable to record such settings (and, say, more commonly, the selections for how change-tracking is shown), I think there is still an important principle: that a conforming document is correctly renderable without concern for any settings.  That is, there should be no expectation whatsoever that a consumer will honor such setting in any manner, and there should be nothing to complain about.  Configuration settings should be a convenience feature only.  There should be no expectation that any other producer implementation will preserve or update settings that it encounters in a consumed input.

If there is to be a community interchange of extension definitions, I think that would best be served by doing so in conjunction with foreign elements, attributes, and values.  

On the other hand, if an implementer wants to publish specifications of their configuration settings, fine.   But I don't think we should change configuration settings to being implementation-defined, nor should they be elevated beyond a convenience feature for retaining information between one use of the document and another using the same implementation.

> 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