RE: [office] The desirability of xml:id stability

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Some things I think we should all keep
in mind, about the relative difficulty of things.   We generally have
XXX options when narrowing constraints in ODF:

1) Mandate the new narrowed constraints
in ODF 1.3.  Of course, changing the standard is not the same as changing
implementations, and unless there is a high level of consensus the desired
changes probably will not occur.

2) Have the standard make a recommendation,
i.e., a "should" rather than a "shall".  If there
is some implementer interest we gain experience from that, and if it is
valuable others will follow.  Then we can look at making it mandatory
in a future version of ODF.

3) Defining a new conformance target
and making the new behavior mandatory for conformance with that new target.
 For example, define a "preserving ODF producer" and mandate
specific behavior for xml:id, and maybe also foreign element preservation.
 Maybe some other behaviors?   Applications that wish to claim
conformance with this target then can aim to support that conformance target.

4) Similar effect but with a "profile
standard" that defines a profile on top of ODF.

5) A non-normative document, or a section
on the specification, on additional interoperability best practices.

If there is not consensus for #1 (and
I am not offering an opinion on that right now) then let's not forget the
other options as well.

Regards,

-Rob