[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] preferred view mode upon opening document
As currently proposed, option 2 does not allow extensions. Valid values of the manifest:preferred-view-mode attribute are the three listed in the proposal, and no more. If we wanted to allow additional values, and encourage uniqueness, we could allow IRI values as well, like " http://www.google.com/schemas/odf/view-mode1". This is similar to package naming conventions in Java, where the use of packages like com.ibm.Foo piggybacks on the domain name registry uniqueness. Of course, nothing can force ODF users to do this correctly, so we can never enforce global uniqueness. But we can encourage it. Doing this change would look like this: <define name="file-entry-attlist" combine="interleave"> <optional> <attribute name="manifest:preferred-view-mode"> <choice> <choice> <value>edit</value> <value>presentation-slide-show</value> <value>read-only</value> </choice> <ref name="anyURI"/> </choice> </attribute> </optional> </define> But do we want to go down that path? This solution, although I've seen it used in other standards, is not used in ODF anywhere else, to my knowledge, although the issues of extensibility and namespace collisions are universal. I dislike introducing a new design pattern, and have it be used in only one place. "Creeping elegance" is the term that comes to mind. Other ways of handling this might be: 1) Apply this technique throughout ODF, wherever we currently have a fixed enumeration and we wish to allow additional custom choices. 2) Don't add the IRI support to the schema, but in some introductory material, specify that any identifiers used in extensions "should" or "shall" be based on IRI's in order to encourage global uniqueness. Regards, -Rob "Warren Turkal" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 10/23/2008 12:07:02 PM: > > We should have a policy for naming custom views so that applications > can innovate in that space. I don't think that the proposal should be > approved until we have defined a method for someone to make a custom > view without spraying all over a global namespace. > > wt > > 2008/10/22 Ming Fei Jia <email@example.com>: > > Dear TC members, > > > > This is a proposal submitted many days ago. Here is the proposal link > > (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/proposal%3Aauto- > play_presentation_file_format). > > > > After several rounds of TC discussion, this time I updated in 2 minor > > places: (1)change the proposal name from "auto-play presentation file > > format" to "preferred view mode upon opening document" since the latter is > > more suitable for the proposal meaning as all TC members preferred the > > extended option;(2) rename one of preferred view modes from "slide-show" to > > "presentation-slide-show" according to Warren's suggestion. > > > > If no substantial comments for this proposal, I would like to vote on the > > next TC call. Thanks.