[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [office] Open Office Specification Draft 9
Dear TC members, I've copied a new specification draft into the TC's document section: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/download.php/5692/office-spec-1.0-draft-9.sxw I've also copied three Relax-NG schemas, that all were extracted from the spcification document: 1. office-spec-1.0-draft-9.rng is the full schema. It now allows any content within <office:meta> and the formatting properties elements. 2. office-spec-1.0-draft-9-strict.rng allows only the predefined elements and attributes within <office:meta> and the formatting properties elements. It is a rather short schema that includes the full schema and simply replaces some definitions. 3. office-spec-1.0-draft-9-manifest.rng is the schema for package manifest files. The first two schemas solve the validation issue we discussed last Monday. The specification document is complete. There are only two open issues that we should discuss on Monday: 1. The usage of the words MUST, SHOULD, etc. 2. An "TODO (TC)" on page 569 regarding the style:overflow-behavior attribute. I suggest that do a review of the specification until Monday, February the 8th. If any additional TC decisions are required, we may vote about them at Monday, the 8th, so that we can integrate them into the spec in the same week. At the same time, we may remove all "Notes to the TC" from the spec, so that we get the draft that we use for voting about a committee specification. The voting might take place in the con call at Monday, the 15th, or by an e-mail voting that starts in the week of Monday, the 8th, and closes in the week of Monday, the 15th. Regarding 1: We have been very carefull using these words as keywords. We have introduced them to describe what documents conforming applications must be able to read and what they should do with unknown content. In these chapters, we use must, etc. as keywords already, or may check this again. Beside these requirements, we only have litte requirements regarding conforming applictions. This means that the words here probably in most situation are used to express what the schema formally describes (i.e. an required attribute MUST be present, an optional one MAY be present). For this reason, it seems to be a valid option to me to leave the specification as it is, or to remove the usage of these words as keywords ouside the chapters where we define conformance. Best regards Michael
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]