[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Conformance Clauses and NVDL
Dear TC members, I have integrated below thoughts into a fourth iteration of the conformance clause proposal: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/29584/conformance-definition-proposal-v2.odt I have further created a Proposal Wiki page for the proposal: http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Conformance I would like to discuss this proposal in the next call. Please note that I did not add anything related to NVDL to the conformance clauses so far. The use of NVDL would not effect the requirements a conforming document must meet, but we would only state them in NVDL scripts rather than as text. And of cause we would reference NVDL scripts rather than Relax-NG schemas in the conformance clauses. I will submit a separate proposal regarding NVDL when we have agreed on the content of the conformance clauses itself. Best regards Michael On 07.10.08 15:43, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote: > Hi Jirka, > > On 10/03/08 16:37, Jirka Kosek wrote: >> Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote: >> >>> I have uploaded a first NVDL script here: >>> >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/29455/odf.nvdl >>> >>> It probably requires some more work, but it shows already what >>> using NVDL would look like. >> ... >>> One last remark: NVDL is new to me. So, any support with further >>> developing the script is welcome. >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> I haven't had enough time to study your NVDL script and conformance >> proposal in detail. But I think that moving to NVDL is right approach. >> >> So far, I have noticed one problem in NVDL script. Instead of: >> >> <namespace ns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> >> <validate schema="../../specs/mathml2/mathml2.xsd"/> >> </namespace> >> >> you should use >> >> <namespace ns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> >> <validate schema="../../specs/mathml2/mathml2.xsd"/> >> <attach/> >> </namespace> >> >> (and similar change for XForms) >> This will validate MathML fragments against MathML schema, but at the >> same time MathML fragment will stay in its place and will be validated >> against ODF RELAX NG schema which defines where MathML fragments can >> appear. Without <attach/> NVDL script will allow MathML fragment to be >> anywhere. > > Thanks for this hint. You are right. The current script allows MathML > everywhere. I'm not sure if an <attach> actually solves this issue. > > My understanding is that <attach> adds the MathML fragment to its > parent element before validation takes place. This means that the ODF > schema either must include definitions for MathML, or must allow > anything where MathML may occur. In DTDs we may just define that the > <math:math> element's content is ANY, and there may be a similar concept > in XSD. In Relax-NG we need some complex rules here, and these rules > cause ambiguity issues regarding the Relax-NG DTD compatibility > specification. > > Actually the current ODF schema already allows anything within > <math:math> elements. The ambiguity issues this causes regarding the > Relax-NG DTD Compatibility specification are one reason why I have > suggested to use NVDL instead. > > I think another solution to limit the places where <math:math> may occur > is the use of a <context> element. Maybe its also an option to use the > <attachPlaceholder> element. > >> >> In NVDL you can also very easily define that foreign elements/attributes >> are allowed everywhere. This is something which should be really defined >> on schema level, rather only in prose (which is the current state of >> affair in ODF spec). > > I agree, but there is one problem. We currently have an attribute > "office:process-content" which specifies whether the content of an > element should be processed or not. The correct NVDL action if the value > of this attribute is "false" would be to ignore the element. The correct > action if the value of this attribute is "true" would be an <unwrap>. > Unfortunately it seems not to be possible to take one of the other > action in an NVDL scripts based on an attribute value. > > Well, the fact that this behavior cannot be described by NVDL may > provide a reason to reconsider this feature. I believe that in most > cases the content of foreign elements should be processed if the element > occurs within paragraphs, and should be ignored in all other cases. We > may therefore consider to deprecate the office:process-content attribute > and could instead define that within paragraphs an <unwrap> action takes > place, and that foreign elements are ignored in all other cases. For the > few cases where this does not work, we have the new RDF based matadata > features, that in any case provides a powerful alternative to use > foreign elements. > > Best regards > > Michael > > >> >> You can find some more discussion about using NVDL for ODF validation >> here: >> >> http://lists.dsdl.org/dsdl-comment/2008-06/0005.html >> >> >> Jirka >> > > -- Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering StarOffice/OpenOffice.org Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55 D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500 http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS 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]