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] preferred view mode upon opening document


That's a good idea.

wt

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:47, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 -
Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@sun.com> wrote:
> This sounds good to me. I only would like to add that whenever an
> implementor adds an implementation specific value and believes that other
> implementations could make reasonable use of it, that I then would strongly
> recommend to submit a proposal to the TC to standardize this value.
>
> Michael
>
> On 29.10.08 22:09, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>
>>  > 2. What about a sentence on the specification like: "It is
>>>
>>> recommended that all custom view mode specification documentation is
>>> made available to enhance documents interoperability" ?
>>>
>>
>> The issue Warren raises is a general issue, not exclusive to view mode
>> alone.  One way to address this globally is two add two things to the ODF
>> text:
>>
>> 1) Where ever something like this occurs, explicitly call the behavior
>> "implementation-defined".  Use that as a uniform label of areas where ODF
>> allows implementations to implement their own behaviors.  So we say
>> something like "Additional view modes may be used, but they shall be
>> prefixed by a namespace qualifier not defined by this standard.  The
>> behavior of such view modes is implementation-defined".
>>
>> 2) Then in the conformance clause, we add language like:  "An
>> implementation shall be accompanied by a document that defines all
>> implementation-defined and locale-specific characteristics and all
>> extensions."  (That is the language directly out of ISO/IEC 9899:1999 C
>> Programming Language.  You can see here what one implementation created to
>> define its "implementation-defined" features:
>>  http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Implementation.html
>>
>> We don't need that exact language, but you get the idea.  A standard can
>> allow implementation-defined behavior, but can also require that these be
>> documented.  If we're going to do this, I'd rather we do it pervasively in
>> the standard rather than just in the view mode attribute.
>>
>> What do TC members think?
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>


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