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] 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

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)

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:patrick@durusau.net] 
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 14:48
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org; Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM
Subject: Re: [office] Text for 17.5?


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.

[ ... ]

>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00100.html
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:54
> To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: 'Patrick Durusau'; Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM
> Subject: RE: [office] Text for 17.5?
>  - Dennis
[ ... ]

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