[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Text for 17.5?
OK, here is a complete proposal for 17.5: ODF 1.0 IS 26300 Section page line page line 17.5 686 18 699 17 In ODF 1.0 [IS 26300] replace the entire paragraph *** All other kinds of URI[IRI] references, namely the ones that start with a protocol (like http:), an authority (i.e., //) or an absolute-path (i.e., /) do not need any special processing. This especially means that absolute-paths do not reference files inside the package, but within the hierarchy the package is contained in, for instance the file system. URI[IRI] references inside a package may leave the package, but once they have left the package, they never can return into the package or another one. *** with the paragraph *** Non-relative-path references must not refer to files inside a package. Relative-path references having paths that traverse out of the package must not reference files inside any package. *** OBSERVATION 1. The "special processing" observation suggests too much about possible special processing. I believe that the above makes it clear enough that 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. 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 accomplish this above by not using either term in the proposed replacement. I also think there are some edge cases around character-set encodings in Zip files versus in the XML file 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. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00102.html Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 14:48 To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM Subject: Re: [office] Text for 17.5? Dennis, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00101.html > 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. [ ... ] 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? > > > > > - Dennis > [ ... ]