[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Preservation question
Marbux,
I think you are deeply confused about the issue of interoperability.
Yes, ODF fully defines both syntax and semantics that enables
interoperability between applications that conform to ODF.
But, recall that metadata in particular allows users to define
information that is not defined in the ODF standard. That is to say that
a conforming ODF application may encounter information that it cannot
process or perhaps even recognize. Better applications will simply
preserve such metadata files so that when the document is sent to a more
robust application, that information can be used.
Now, on the issue of xml:ids. What does it mean to preserve xml:ids?
Well, what if I get a document with an xml:id on a paragraph element and
I delete the paragraph? And that paragraph was the target of some
metadata. Is that preserving the xml:id? What if I cut&paste that
paragraph to another location in another document? Must I preserve the
xml:id which may conflict with another xml:id? If I don't, is that
failing to preserve the xml:id? Those are just two really obvious cases
that come to mind and there are others.
The problem with specifying preservation in general is that it means you
have to define what that means for processing models, which isn't
something that ODF has ever done. It defines a document format, not how
you process it.
Noting that defining an environment in which an editor exists is
fundamentally different from that of a regular XML processor. A schema
or DTD can define xml:ids and it is straightforward to give the rules
for xml parser because it is never going to change or edit the text.
That is not the case with an editor. The reason why editors exist is to
change the text and to do so, they have to have a certain amount of
flexibility.
If you want to offer some constructive suggestions on how to deal with
this issue I am sure everyone would be interested. However, jumping up
and down and saying that xml:ids must be preserved isn't helpful. It
really doesn't matter how much you want that to be the case if you can't
offer any reasonable way for a standard to require it.
I would certainly prefer the preservation option but at this point I
can't see any useful way to make that a requirement without specifying
how ODF processors must work. And so far as I can tell, that is not the
purpose of the ODF standard.
And that is directly applicable to broken solutions for conversion that
rely upon foreign elements and attributes. There never has been any
requirement in ODF that foreign elements and attributes be preserved and
the authors of such methods knew that when writing their converter. The
authors of other software are under no obligation to make changes in
their software to work with such a solution.
And using standards to
force others to adapt to a particular conversion strategy is extremely
poor standards making.
Does any of that help?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]