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] Table Protected Proposal - Edge Case Questions #2

On 02.01.09 03:57, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> In examining the other parts of the Table Protected Proposal I notice
> another kind of Edge Case that may be important.
> QUESTION #1: The proposal provides a schema fragment.  It does not state
> whether this schema fragment is in addition to the fragment for
> <table:table-cell> table:protect or is to be introduced in place of that
> one.  This needs to be clear.  I tend to think of deprecation as a warning
> that there will be future removal, not the actual removal.  (My example of
> this is the Java API where many features have been deprecated over time.)
> If the table:protect is deprecated *and* removed in 1.2, I think it should
> be said that clearly.

The schema fragment should be added. I thought this was clear because 
the attribute itself should be added. But I indeed missed to adapt the 
"Schema changes/additions:" text from the template in front of the the 
schema fragment, so that it indeed is not clear whether the schema 
fragment is changed or added.

> QUESTION #2: The answers to question #1 impact what can be said about
> backwards compatibility.  I missed any discussion of whether it is the
> schema or the text that was normative in earlier versions of ODF.  I assume

Well, this has never been decided as a general rule, and I personally 
think one has to decide this individually case by case. I usually would 
consider the schema to be normative, unless it is obvious that the 
schema is wrong. That was for instance the case when we spelled "right" 
somewhere as "rihgt" in the schema. I believe no one would assume that 
this is really what we consider to be normative.

> backward compatibility has two components: (1) the impact of accepting an
> earlier ODF version document in and ODF 1.2 processor as if it is ODF 1.2
> and (2) the impact on a previous-ODF-version processor's acceptance of an
> ODF 1.2 document by ignoring features that it does not understand.  It seems
> to me that however we look at it, there is a (potential) breaking change
> between this ODF 1.2 feature and processors of earlier versions of ODF.
> Where should that be addressed?

At the application level. An ODF 1.2 application that wants to be 
prepared to read ODF 1.1 documents would have to accept both attributes. 
And if it wants to save documents that are understood by ODF 1.1 
applications then it has to either use table:protect or has to store 
both attributes.

>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00000.html
> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 18:22
> To: 'OpenDocument Mailing List'
> Cc: 'Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM'
> Subject: Table Protected Proposal - Edge Case Question
> [ ... ]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200812/msg00170.html
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 06:06
> To: OpenDocument Mailing List
> Subject: [office] Ballot Request: Table Protected Proposal
> Dear TC members,
> we have discussed the following proposal in the last TC call:
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Table-Protected
> I'm now requesting a ballot for this proposal for the next TC call (Jan, 
> the 5th).
> A copy of the proposal is available in the document repository at
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30461/table-protected.odt
> Best regards
> Michael

Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

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]