Re: [office] The proposal:auto-play presentation file format has beenupdated by the New Proposal Form

[Ming Fei Jia <jiamingf@cn.ibm.com>]

"Warren Turkal" ---07/08/2008 09:40:03 AM---I was on vacation. Sorry for the late reply.

From:	"Warren Turkal" <turkal@google.com>
To:	Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM@IBMCN
Cc:	office@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	07/08/2008 09:40 AM
Subject:	Re: [office] The proposal:auto-play presentation file format has been updated by the New Proposal Form

---

>I was on vacation. Sorry for the late reply.

>I apologize for the shortness of the reply. I don't have much time.

>wt

2008/7/4 Ming Fei Jia <jiamingf@cn.ibm.com>:
> Warren,
>
> Sorry to be late response. I'm very busy in other work during these days.
>
> Actually, I have no strong concern about the preferred view name, though I
> have a little feeling that "presentation" before "slide-show" seems
> extraneous. Besides the previous reason, another reason for my feeling is
> that I feel "slide-show" itself seems only applied to presentation, so there
> is no necessary to emphasize "presentation" again in the name.
>
> If you still have strong concern about this, I suggest let's wait for
> another few days again, if no other members objection, I'll accept your
> suggested name "presentation-slide-show". I say so because this is an open
> community, everyone has right to accept or object any proposal.

>I still feel strongly that presentation- belongs in front since the
>mode only applies to presentations. I thought that Michael concurred
>on the last call where we discussed it.
Michael, really? 

> But you know another thing that we need to consider about this proposal is
> the customized view mode name, how to define schema for that(like x-name
> or)? Anyone can help? On the other hand, for this problem, we can think
> about it from another perspective. That is, do we really need to define the
> customized view mode now, even we are unclear about what the future mode is?
> Why not put it aside now, and when some preferred view mode appears in the
> future, we add the definitive mode name again?

>We need to define how custom views are named so that we don't get into
>a situation where an official one could clash with an unofficial one.
Sorry, I'm unclear what the official one is and what the unofficial one is in this case. My original question is whether it is necessary to define the customized, unclear view mode now. I mean maybe a better way is that we just keep the current 3 definitive values, do not define the customized view mode since the x values still are unclear now. Standard should specify those definitive things. That let users customize their own preferred view mode in the future should be implementation specific unless the preferred view mode is defined in the standard.