[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-comment] Systematic faults in normative presentationof content models (ODF 1.2 CD01)
Alex, Sorry, I have been offline for several days due to illness. Alex Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > The presentation of elements (currently the monospaced text on a > peach-coloured background) within ODF 1.2 CD01 is a big step backward > from previous versions, and needs to be revisited. > > If you had stopped to consider the content of the material in question you would have realized that it is in fact *is* "part-normalized to eliminate opaque patterns and bring actual element and attribute declarations to the fore. Ideally each mentioned element/attribute name should then be hyperlinked to its corresponding description in the spec." I agree that the mandatory/optional nature of the models should be reflected in the auto-generated language and that plus the nature of auto-generated value lists for attributes with enumerated values is already underway. Since the RELAX NG schema will be a normative part of the standard, I fail to see why we should include a form of it here. A "part-normalized" form is going to be as long as what you complain about here, assuming we insert the hyperlinked references. Moreover, the standard would then fact the objection that it was *duplicating normative content.* An objection many would find persuasive. As it stands, we are simply providing relevant cross-references that aid in understanding a particular element or attribute. Recall that there are issues with the structure of the schema that are directly related to its early editorial use and I would prefer to avoid those in the future. Structures for schema authoring should facilitate that task and no other. Hope you are at the start of a great week! Patrick > Consider the first time this happens, in 2.2.2 > > ----b > The <office:document> element is a root element. > The <office:document> element may be used with the following elements: > <db:component> 11.3.5 and <draw:object> 9.4.5.2. > The <office:document> element may have the following attributes: > grddl:transformation 18.327, office:mimetype 18.382 and office:version > 18.392. > The <office:document> element may have the following child elements: > <office:automatic-styles> 2.16.3, <office:body> 2.4, > <office:font-face-decls> 2.15, <office:master-styles> 2.16.4, > <office:meta> 2.3, <office:scripts> 2.13, <office:settings> 2.11 and > <office:styles> 2.16.2. > ----e > > The problems with this are: > > 1. It is verbose and very difficult to read. Later in the spec we have > whole half-pages containing solid blocks of similar content. > > 2. It is casually worded to the point of being meaningless: what does it > mean that an element "may be used with" another element, e.g.? > > 3. It contradicts the schema. The text above says this element *may* > have the office:mimetype attribute, yet the schema declares this element > *shall* have this attribute. Similarly, it is stated above that the > element *may* have certain children element which, according to the > schema, are mandatory. A consequence of this systematic fault is that a > large portion of the normative content of this draft is, simply, > *wrong*. > > Any normative statement of an element's grammar (which is what this is) > should be made using a clear, terse, and unambiguous notation. SC 34 has > standardised RELAX NG compact syntax expressly for this purpose. > > The ODF spec should be re-written to use RNG compact syntax to express > the normative content models of XML elements. This RNG should be > part-normalized to eliminate opaque patterns and bring actual element > and attribute declarations to the fore. Ideally each mentioned > element/attribute name should then be hyperlinked to its corresponding > description in the spec. > > - Alex. > > > -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]