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] Conformance Clauses and NVDL

Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:

> If we could really exclude namespaces we are defining ourselves then
> this would be a solution. But with ODF 1.2 we have introduced xml:id,
> and we can't exclude this attribute within XForms model content.

My proposal was not excluding any attributes. It has removed ODF
elements from "any" pattern used in extensibility points. By doing this
you are preventing conflicting ID types situation.

The only problem can be that you might want allow ODF elements inside
XForms model but you can explicitly add those elements to special "any"
pattern used only for XForms model.

>> This feature is considered for future versions of NVDL. If there is
>> demand for it from ODF this can accelerate adoption I think. Some NVDL
>> validators provide this functionality as an extension, e.g.:
>> http://jnvdl.sourceforge.net/extensions.html#extensions-usewhen
> Thanks. I didn't know that. Anyway, using this feature would only be an
> option if it would exist in NVDL already today or in the very near
> future. Do you when an NVDL standard will be available that does include
> this feature?

No. There is not concrete proposal for extending NVDL on the table yet
mainly because there is constraint that such feature should not break
streamability of NVDL validation. And it is not easy to find streamable
XPath subset which will not be too limited.

> The NVDL script provided in this document checks whether elements and
> attributes from the markup compatibility namespace are syntactically
> correct. But it is my understanding that it does not consider its
> semantics. That means that is does not automatically attaches the
> content of an element if its name appears in the value of an
> ProcessContent attribute. It's my understanding that this still requires
> an NVDL script that is tailored to the extension elements that are used.

I was talking about MCEs because they are much flexible and powerful
mechanism for handling extensibility then current ODF approach. Of
course if you want to validate extension elements you have to provide
tailored schema for them.


  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member

OpenPGP digital signature

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