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] Commented: (OFFICE-3788) Make xml:ids stable over the lifetime of a document


    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3788?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=32326#action_32326 ] 

Patrick Durusau commented on OFFICE-3788:
-----------------------------------------

On the contrary, defining persistent may require care but won't be that difficult. How implementations choose to preserve xml:ids, will be implementation-dependent.

I am not sure why some implementations not supporting persistent xml:ids is an issue. Every implementation can choose to conform to a standard or not.

Or to put it differently, no implementation has a right to conformance to a standard. That is letting the tail wag the dog. 

Standards are suppose to benefit consumers with interoperability, not implementers with advertising fodder. 

There are any number of "meaningful benefit[s]" from persistence xml:ids.

One obvious one would be addressing and transclusion of document content into other documents. Much as you can do with spreadsheets now (if you need an example). The example of spreadsheets is only possible because row and column addresses persist. 

I will devote some effort to fleshing out the use cases for persistent xml:ids.   

> Make xml:ids stable over the lifetime of a document
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OFFICE-3788
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3788
>             Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>    Affects Versions: ODF 1.3
>            Reporter: Patrick Durusau
>            Assignee: Patrick Durusau
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: ODF 1.3
>
>
> Currently, xml:ids (19:914) are not required to be stable over the lifetime of a document. So long as an application maintains the links established by use of xml:ids and serializes those, it is free to generate or save xml:ids it encounters. 
> That approach was adopted before the first TC meeting on 16 December 2002. (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200211/msg00001.html) A few days before that, PC Magazine reported its editor's choice for the year:
> "Dell Dimension 8250 - 2.8-Ghz Pentium 4, 512 RDRAM, 7,210-rpm 200GB hard drive, ATI Radeon 9700 Pro graphics card, DVD-ROM and DVD-RW drives, two USB L1 and six USB 2.0 ports, one FireWire port, 18-inch LCD. (Brown, Bruce. PC Magazine. 12/3/2002, Vol. 21 Issue 21, p102. 9p. 4 Color Photographs, 9 Charts.)"
> As of December, 2011, PC Magazine reported its editor's choice as:
> "HP Pavilion p7-1167cb  - 3.1GHz Intel Core i5-2400 processor, 8GB of RAM, 7200-rpm 1TB hard drive, AMD Radeon HD 6450 (512MB) discrete graphics card, DVD+-RW, four USB 2.0 ports, audio-in and -out, a mic jack, Ethernet, and VGA and DVI-D video outputs, 25-inch LCD monitor (HP 2511x). (Shoemaker, Natalie. PC Magazine. Dec2011, Vol. 30 Issue 12, p1-1. 1p.)"
> I suspect this is one of those decisions that was influenced by our appreciation of the hardware capabilities implementers would face while implementing ODF. The change in "average" hardware is enough to merit reconsideration of the stability of xml:ids.
> Benefits from stable xml:ids:
> 1) Stable reference points for change tracking
> 2) Detection of non-change tracked deletions (operation pointer no longer has a target)
> 3) Centralized change tracking (request only operations after timestamp or xml:id sequence)
> 4) Changes to changes by different applications detectable but not resolved by ODF.
> Not to mention that stable xml:ids would be an incentive to fix all the referencing in ODF 1.3 to use xml:ids and not names, etc. 
> I have proposed using a 32-bit number below as that allows addressing up to 4,294,967,295 items. There is a lot of experience with compressing 32-bit numbers. Should we bump that up to 64? Just to avoid revisiting the issue any time soon?  
> I prepended odf to the string to meet the requirements of NCNAME in XML Schema Part 2, Datatypes, http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#ID 

-- 
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]