Re: [office] xml:lang settings. Confused.

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 20/06/07, Eike Rathke <erack@sun.com> wrote:

> > I thought forward compatibility was the issue? rev 1.0 should be readable
> > by 2.0, not the other way round?
>
> Sure. Nevertheless it's nice if we provide a way where 1.2 aware
> applications can write a format that still can be read by 1.1-only
> applications, if possible.

Why should ODF do that?
I see no reason.
Nice, yes. Requisite? No.



> > Additionally all applications would have to
> > >adapt their load/store procedures quite significantly.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Huh? If they didn't they'd write 1.1 fo:* format, not xml:lang, and
> would not be able to read xml:lang sequences.

If I understood the load/store procedure I'd answer that.


>
> > Note I have no knowledge of the application level.
> > To me the value of odf is the xml on disk. The apps are temporal.
>
> Please note that this TC works on something called
>
> "OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument)"
>
> I guess the wording "for Office Applications" was intentional. We're not
> constructing some theoretical storage format. We try to adapt to the
> needs of applications. You do want to process the ODF on disk, not just
> lock it away.

Yes, which is why my focus is on the 'laid down on disk' XML format.
Not the interactive generation of screen stuff that eventually becomes
'laid down on disk' XML format.

Hence my focus on 'ODF' not Office applications?
   Think longer term Eike :-)


regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk