[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: conformance proposal, remarks
having read the conformance proposal, 7th iteration, I do have a
- I'd go for the single-conformance level (the alternative proposal),
rather than having both a "conformance" and a "loosely conformance"
(By the way, given the improvements on metadata and other areas in
ODF 1.2, why not create just one single strict schema, instead of
having both a "regular" and a "strict" schema ?
Would people be missing features that can be expressed in ODF, but
not in "strict" ODF ?)
- Producer, G.1.1: "shall not intentionally create any non-conforming
OpenDocument document of any kind."
Remove "intentionally", we're not investigating a murder here :-)
Otherwise it suggests that is more or less OK if you accidentally
create a non-conforming document...
- "It may create documents that do not conform to this specification
if and only if denotes these by a term that makes clear that these
are not OpenDocument v1.2 documents."
I'm a bit puzzled here...
So in case of a word processor, that would translate to making a
distinction between document types in the "save as..." dialog box,
Or is this about using the correct office:version and xmlns in the
XML itself ?
(+ there seem to be some copy/paste glitches at the start of G 1.2)
- Consumer P1.1: "It may be able to parse and interpret OpenDocument
documents stored as single XML document."
I would suggest to change this to "shall" (if a document is produced by
a conforming producer, I'm expecting any conforming reader to be able
to read it)