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] Issue Comment Edited: (OFFICE-3026) PublicComment: Part 1 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=22034#action_22034 ] 

Dennis Hamilton edited comment on OFFICE-3026 at 10/9/10 11:29 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Updated to correct a phrasing and respond to the comment by Andreas]

I don't believe the example of spreadsheet precision control nor of the example we have about line-start prohibitions would be excluded by this language.  Those are all clearly within the semantics of the specification, as far as it goes, and are certainly discretionary within those semantics.  Producers have the freedom to control those things under implementation discretion, and certainly to record such matters in the configuration settings.  

Whether some future version of ODF might specify tigher constraints and specific controls, that would apply to that version's allowable configuration settings, that would be for those producer implementations, to accomodate.

If that leads to cases that remain unacceptable to the commenter, I suspect the thing to do is to request tighter specificaiton for specific ODF features where too much implementation-discretion or interoperability impairment is encountered.

So, I don't see this language as prohibiting the recording of settings that are about matters we leave as discretionary or implementation-dependent in any case.  In the case of this being  way to announce an implementation-defined choice, I presume it would be documented as such in that case, with the appropriate associated definition.

I am also aligned with Andreas, concerning introduction of styles (although discretionary interpretation of a style could still be covered in a setting, if there was a desire to connumicate it from a producer to itself and other prospective future consumers).

      was (Author: orcmid):
    I don't believe the example of spreadsheet precision control nor of the example we have about line-start prohibitions would be excluded by this language.  Those are all clearly within the semantics of the specification, as far as it goes, and are certainly discretionary within those semantics.  Producers have the freedom to control those things under implementation discretion, and certainly to record such matters in the configuration settings.  

Whether some future version of ODF might specify tigher constraints and specific controls, that would apply to that version's allowable configuration settings, that would be for those producer implementations, to accomodate.

If that leads to cases that remain unacceptable to the commenter, I suspect the thing to do is to require tighter specificaiton where too much implementation-discretion or interoperability impairment is encountered.

So, I don't see this language as prohibiting the recording of settings that are about matters we leave as discretionary or implementation-dependent in any case.  In the case of this being  way to announce an implementation-defined choice, I presume it would be documented as such in that case, with the appropriate associated definition.
  
> 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]