RE: [office] Some ballot request - ODF 1.2 part 1 conformance clause

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I am pleased that this is useful.  I need to digest your responses more
carefully.

One observation is a hot button for me (since I dug into the MIME types and
couldn't find out what a template was):

Isn't it time we said what the structure and interpretation of a template
document is, especially since it must have a MIME type but might not have an
<office:body>.  (It is possible for an <office:document> to be for a
template, and the schema requires an <office:body> in that case, although I
suspect one can satisfy that requirement by having an <office:body> that is
effectively empty.)

 - Dennis

PS: I am going out on a limb about <math:math>.  Are you saying that there
is an ODF document that has <math:math> as its content.xml root element and
it has no <office:document-content> (or <office:document>) element at all?
So this would be completely outside of the <office:body> model?  I think
this needs to be reflected in Section 2 of ODF 1.2, even if it references
part 2 for details.  I had assumed that <math:math> would show up on other
subfiles of a package and these would be relied on from the main document,
not be a main document.  I see I have more homework to do.  I think it
should be reflected in Section 2 of part 1 somehow, even if only to indicate
that there is another kind of structure defined in part 2 (and maybe 3).

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 09:06
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: 'OpenDocument TC'
Subject: Re: [office] Some ballot request - ODF 1.2 part 1 conformance
clause

Hi Dennis,

thank you very much for your feedback. It is very helpful.

On 10/31/08 07:43, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
[ ... ]
> D1.1.2 I don't understand how there can be conforming documents with no
> <office:body> element.  What could the MIME type possibly be?  So I would
> think that the document package would have to contain a content.xml file.
> The <office:document> schema requires <office:body> and it would seem to
be
> naturally required for the package of a complete document.

Document templates which only contain style information don't require a
<office:body>, and therefore also no content.xml.

I'm not sure if there are use cases for having documents that contain
neither a content.xml nor a styles.xml. So, what about stating that at
least one of the two streams have to be present?

[ ... ]