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: OpenDocument v1.2 draft 7-5

Dear TC members,

as announced recently, I have developed an XSLT stylesheet that checks 
whether all element and attributes that are defined by the schema do 
also have a heading and an reference anchor in the specification 
document. In agreement with Patrick, I have added all missing headings 
and anchor points to the specification. The result is draft 5 that I 
have uploaded today.

The editable version of the document can be found here:


A version with generated cross references and default values can be 
found here:


During the test I found an error in the schema that I have corrected. 
The updated schema is available here:


Most changes I made are minor changes, like the addition of a missing 
heading or anchor points (in ODF 1.1, some attributes were described as 
part of their parent element only) or the correction of spelling errors.

The larger changes I made are:
- I have partially integrated the meta data proposal, since I had 
integrated this already in the schema, with the result that many 
differences were reported.
- We had no separate sections and description for the child elements and 
attributes of style:font-face, svg:linearGradient and 
svg:radialGradient. Reason was that we adopt these elements from SVG, so 
that a reference to the elements itself was sufficient. However, since 
we included the schema, I have added section for all child elements and 

I had already developed a test that checks whether all element and 
attribute headings and anchors that appear in the specification do also 
appear in the schema. We therefore can say for draft 5 that all elements 
and attributes in the schema have a heading and an anchor point in the 
specification, and vice versa.

One of the open questions is whether we want to include the schema into 
ODF 1.2 (as we did with ODF 1.0 and 1.1). I have to say here that I was 
in favor of this. My main argument was that this makes it easier to keep 
the specification and the schema consistent. However, with the tests we 
have now and because we generate all cross references from the schema 
itself, I believe that at least this argument is not valid any longer. 
So, the question whether to include the schema or to keep it separate in 
my opinion now is just a question of style and usability of the 
specification. I personally could imagine that we keep the schema 
separate, but that just my personal opinion that I have right now.

Best regards


P.S.: I intent to upload the consistency check stylesheets to the 
document repository in the next couple of days.

Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

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

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