[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Version Attribute Proposal
Hi Dave, Dave Pawson wrote: > On 24/11/06, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg > >> Dave (Pawson) noticed that the attribute is optional, and that ODF 1.2 >> document therefore may not identify themselves as such. I agree to him >> that the version attribute should be mandatory for ODF 1.2 documents, >> and therefore propose that we change the description and schema as >> follows: >> >> > All root elements take an office:version attribute, which indicates >> > which version of this specification it complies with. >> > >> > An application that stores a document conforming to this application >> > *shall* use the attribute value "1.2". >> > >> op> <define name="office-document-common-attrs" combine="interleave"> >> > <optional> >> > <attribute name="office:version" a:defaultValue="1.1"> >> > <choice> >> > <value>1.0</value> >> > <value>1.1</value> >> > <value>1.2</value> >> > <ref name="string"> >> > <param name="pattern">[1-9]+\.[0-9]+</param> >> > </ref> >> > </choice> >> > </attribute> >> > </optional> >> > </define> >> >> Some notes: >> - In order to achieve that ODF 1.0/1.2 remain valid ODF 1.2 instances, I >> have kept the attribute optional in the schema. The description >> however states that the attribute actually is mandatory for ODF 1.2 >> documents. > > I don't agree with keeping it optional. > That would imply forward compatibility, which is clearly impossible to > operate. > If that is wanted, I'd suggest wording as used in XSLT from W3C. > If a processor for version X meets a version >X then its response is > undefined. Isn't the situation I'm describing "If a processor for version X meets a version <X"? What I want to achieve with keeping the version attribute optional is that if a 1.2 processor validates a 1.0 or 1.1 document against the 1.2 schema, that it then does not get validation errors. Michael > > > > > >> - I have kept the possibility to use arbitrary version numbers in the >> schema. This shall allow to validate future document against the >> schema, if they don't use any new features. I'm not sure we need that. >> - I have removed the sentences regarding validation, because it is >> obvious and not specific to OpenDocument that documents could be >> validated. > > But the 'optional' schema value makes it unverifiable? > > I would like to make it easy to verify compliance to a revision of the > spec, Maybe I have overseen something, but if the attribute is not existing, then a processor would have to choose the 1.1 schema. Only if it is present and has the value 1.2, it has to choose the 1.2 schema. > not impossible? Michael > > regards > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]