OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office] proposal for ODF 1.2: extension of verticalrelationvalues for certain anchor types

Hi Patrick,

Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Oliver,
> I am trying to catch up on various threads, a question below:
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> <snip>
>> But regardless of my proposal and as you already stated, we have the
>> problem that the current ODF 1.0/1.1 specification does not define, how
>> an application should react, when a disallowed combination of vertical
>> relation and anchor type occurs in a document. The other problem we have
>> is that there exist already released ODF 1.0/1.1 supporting
>> applications, which based on the above mentioned undefined behavior.
>> Each of the Florian's above given behaviors and even more ones can
>> already been implemented.
>> Thus, I have problems in defining the behavior of an ODF 1.0/1.1
>> supporting application, when it imports an ODF 1.2 document containing
>> one of my proposed new combinations of vertical relation and anchor type.
>> I think we have no chance to correct our error - leaving the behavior on
>> disallowed vertical relation and anchor type combinations undefined -
>> for ODF 1.0/1.1 supporting applications, especially when these
>> applications are already released. That is the reason why I only made
>> assumptions about it.
>> What we can do - and at the beginning I already stated that it seems to
>> me a valid request - is to correct this error for ODF 1.2 supporting
>> applications. But, I think this is not in the scope of my proposal,
>> which is a feature proposal. The correction should be handled in a
>> different proposal - a correction proposal - in order to have the
>> possibility to discuss/vote on these things separately.
> Here is where I jump the track. I have:
> 1) Your post on extending vertical relation values for certain anchor 
> types (1 July 2008)

My post from 2008-07-01 is a reply on my original proposal from 
2008-06-02. My post from 2008-07-01 contains some comments on the 
backward compatibility of the original proposal.

> 2) Florian responds (3 July 2008) asking about "old ODF processing 
> entities"


> 3) You respond as above suggesting "something" is a valid request.
> 4) Following #3, Florian further responds with a question about 
> invalid/unknown values for known elements/attributes.
> What I am missing is the "second" proposal that you see in Florian's post.

Currently, no formal proposal exist for this.

> Do you mean the request that we somehow codify the treatment of values 
> that we did not previously define?


> While that may appear to make sense, I am not sure how that is different 
> from defining the "next" version of the standard.
> In other words, if previously we did not define the vertical relation 
> values you propose, we can say in ODF 1.2 (as a separate proposal) that 
> if a document doesn't have these values, we define default values to be 
> applied. Assume we are talking about an ODF 1.0/1.1 document.

I am not sure about your previous paragraph. I am fine with it except 
the last sentence - I did not get its relation to the rest of the 
paragraph. Can you please explain again, what you mean? Thx.

> An application claim conformance to ODF 1.2 in that respect.
> However, note that I don't think it is possible for us to re-define what 
> it would mean to be a conforming ODF 1.0/1.1 application. Whatever 
> conformance we defined in those versions of the standards is fixed and 
> cannot be changed.

I agree.

> I suppose, just to be complete, that someone could separately define a 
> profile for ODF applications that relies in part on one of the ODF 
> standards and says that in addition to supporting parts 1 - * of the ODF 
> standard, an application shall, ....., and define additional 
> requirements for things that ODF does not define. I can easily imagine 
> vertical industries that create metadata vocabularies, such as for 
> medical intake forms, etc., creating such profiles. Which would enable 
> them to require the use of ODF and some specified metadata vocabulary. 
> Or to use it in some particular way.
> The important thing to note is that would not be the ODF TC per se 
> making that declaration.
> Hope you are having a great day!
> Patrick

Regards, Oliver.

Sun Microsystems GmbH    Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
Nagelsweg 55             Software Engineer - OpenOffice.org/StarOffice
20097 Hamburg
Germany                  Fax:   (+49 40) 23 646 550
http://www.sun.de        mailto:oliver-rainer.wittmann@sun.com
Sitz der Gesellschaft:
Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (od) - OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]