[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Text for 17.5?
Dennis, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I should make it clear that under PROPOSAL 1, below, the corresponding > paragraph in the current specifications is not touched and the paragraph > from Patrick's understanding is deleted. > > It would be easier if you just state the text that should be replaced with the text you are proposing for replacement. I am having a hard time keeping the various posts in mind. Thus: **** text in standard **** to be replaced by: **** replacement text **** and now follow with whatever observations, comments, free verse, etc. I think we are nearly there thanks to you but I would have a hard time convincing anyone else of that status given the email posts. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:email@example.com] > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00100.html > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:54 > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Cc: 'Patrick Durusau'; Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM > Subject: RE: [office] Text for 17.5? > > Actually, I *was* stunned into silence. Mostly it was because I had > mis-read Michael's proposal for the paragraph that describes the base-IRI > rule. > > IMPORTANT NOTE: The OASIS Standard for ODF 1.0 refers to a different RFC and > uses URI, not IRI. The IRI language and RFC3986/RFC3987 are only used in IS > 26300 (and ODF 1.0ed2-cs1). So we need to word the erratum appropriately to > do the right thing in the respective documents. I also think there are some > edge cases around character-set encodings in Zip files versus in the XML > versus in file systems, along with the presumption that IRIs are in an > encoding of Unicode (but may have URL %-escaping). We need to look at > tightening that for 1.2, perhaps. > > WITH REGARD TO PATRICK'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSAL > > PROPOSAL 1: > > Make no changes to the text of the paragraph beginning "A relative-path > reference ..." > > PROPOSAL 2: > > Boil the second paragraph, beginning "Every IRI reference" down to this > much: > > *** > IRI that are not relative-path references must not reference files inside a > package. Relative-path references that lead beyond the package at any point > along the path must not reference files inside any package. > *** > > OBSERVATION 1. The "special processing" observation goes too far in > considering how implementations work. I believe that the above makes it > clear enough that only the processor that has the package open can provide > the within-package navigation, but once a reference leads beyond a package, > by whatever means, processing can be delegated to the host system using the > (suitably-adjusted) IRI/URI. > > OBSERVATION 2. I would love to see 17.5 cleaned up better than this, but > that involves addressing the portion that begins "The following restrictions > exist ..." and I think that takes us too far from the problem at hand. > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:email@example.com] > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00089.html > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 01:53 > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: [office] Text for 17.5? > > Greetings! > > After Michael's last post on this issue I don't know if we were all > stunned into silence or if there is general agreement so I thought I > would ask. > > The text as I now understand the proposal (subject to correction) is: > > ***** > A relative-path reference (as defined in ?4.2 of [RFC3986], except > that it may contain the additional characters that are allowed in IRI > references [RFC3987]) that occurs in a file that is contained in a > package has to be resolved exactly as it would be resolved if the whole > package gets unzipped into a directory at its current location. The base > IRI for resolving relative-path references is the one that has to be > used to retrieve the (unzipped) file that contains the relative-path > reference. > > Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not need > any special processing. Absolute-paths can not reference files inside a > package. IRI references inside a package may address anything > addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package or within the same > package, > but no IRI outside of a package may address any location within any > package. > **** > > [ ... ] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > -- Patrick Durusau email@example.com Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)