[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=22037#action_22037 ]
Robert Weir commented on OFFICE-3026:
--------------------------------------
Dennis asked, "4. Rob, so what is an existing use of configuration settings that you think this provision would exclude that you don't find acceptable, when there are of course perfectly good ways, maybe better ways, to introduce implementation defined extensions instead? "
I believe that your provision is ill-formed and could be interpreted to prohibit no application settings, all application settings or anything in between. Until it is stated in unambiguous terms it is impossible to give a more specific critique.
The current proposal holds my formulation of a provision. Is it clear to you what it means? If it is, please give an example of an application setting that you think should be prohibited that is allowed by that statement.
I really think we need to take this in two steps:
1) Agree one what kinds of application settings we want to allow and which ones we want to prohibit.
2) Agree on a way to state this distinction in unambiguous terms.
Until we agree on the first point, it is pointless to debate the second point. And it is possible we will not agree on that first point. But currently I don't know whether I agree or disagree because you've failed to state a position on it. I think I've stated clearly that I believe that no behavior that is otherwise conforming should be made nonconforming merely because it is controlled by an application setting. Presumably you disagree. If so, please explain, in plain terms, with examples, what exactly you are trying to prohibit.
Saying "I'm going to stick with this" is not being helpful, since I've already shown how that formulation is broken to the extent of being meaningless. I think you need to take a big step backwards and explain via examples what you want to prohibit. If there is consensus on that, then we can craft language to better make that distinction. In other words, let's not sweat the drafting until we're all perfectly clear on what you are trying to say. Currently I have no idea what your intent is.
> 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]