[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OFFICE-3026) Public Comment: Part1 3.10.2 <config:config-item-set> too loose
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3026?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=22030#action_22030 ]
Robert Weir commented on OFFICE-3026:
--------------------------------------
Dennis, you are still defining a conformance requirement on a setting, not on a conformance target. Your passive construction obfuscates some of the problems with your formulation. This is not just a concern about style or formality. It gets the heart of what you are trying to say. I'd ask you to try, just for sake of argument, to restate your option as a requirement about a document, a producer or a consumer and it should then be clear that what you are saying doesn't work. Or alternatively, we can resolve this if you would state exactly what your objection is to my formulation.
In particular, "semantics defined for any element or attribute by this specification." are defined by the specification, not by a setting. An element cannot change the text of the specification, so an element cannot "change the semantics defined for an element or attribute by this specification." You might as well say that a setting shall not change the copyright of the standard or shall not change the font of the standard. It is equally unnecessary.
Although there are places where implementation-defined or implementation-dependent behavior is permitted, even in that case the implementations are not "altering" the allowed semantics of the specification, since things that are explicitly or implicitly implementation-dependent have the semantics of implementation-dependent.
For example, line breaking algorithm to be used is implicitly implementation-dependent. So an implementation is free to use any line breaking algorithm they wish. If an implementation stores a line breaking algorithm preference in a config settings, they do not alter any semantics defined by this specification. Further I'd assert that there is nothing an implementation can do in config settings that would alter any semantics defined by the specification. It can't be done. An implementation could certainly contradict the semantics defined by the specification. But that is already non-conforming behavior per 2.3 (C). So no purpose is served by restating a conformance requirement that is already centrally and prominently stated.
> 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, Needs Discussion, Public Review
> Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 CD 05
> Reporter: Dennis Hamilton
> Assignee: Robert Weir
> 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]