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: ODF 1.2 Version Significance Proposal - Update #2


This is the second response to review of the Version Significance Proposal.  

Update #1 on the beginning of the proposed text is at <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00076.html>.

I will incorporate the restatements in the proposal at <http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/ODF_1.2_Version_Significance>.  I will produce a recap that combines all of these updates as the revised draft. 

OBSERVATIONS THAT office:version="1.2" DOES NOT MEAN THAT AN ODF 1.2 PROCESSOR IS ESSENTIAL

[January 5 proposed text (in wikiText format)[

An ODF 1.2 document, notwithstanding occurrences of office:version="1.2", CAN also be acceptable as a document of a previous ODF version when only ODF 1.2-compatible features of the earlier version are relied upon for the ODF 1.2 document.  
]]

COMMENT:

Whether an ODF 1.2 document is acceptable as an ODF 1.1 or ODF 1.0
document depends on whether it meets the conformance criteria we have
defined in these specifications, and only on that. We are defining ODF
1.2 here. We have defined ODF 1.2 in a way that an ODF 1.2 document can
be understood by an ODF 1.0/1.1 application, that's true. But we are not
re-defining or replacing ODF 1.0/1.1 in the meaning that the ODF 1.2
specification in addition to ODF 1.2 also defines what an ODF 1.1 and
ODF 1.0 document is. It only defines what ODF 1.2 is, while the ODF 1.1
specification continues to define what an ODF 1.1 document is, and the 
ODF 1.0 specification continues to define what an ODF 1.0 document is.

Having that said. I think it may be reasonable to provide the 
information that an ODF 1.2 document under certain circumstances is 
understood by an ODF 1.0/1.1 application, but I think we should do so as 
a note rather than as a normative statement.

RESPONSE:

This statement is about documents having office:version="1.2" everywhere, so they are by definition not documents of previous ODF versions.  I had hoped to provide something a little more informative than the ODF 1.0/1.1 statement, "If the file has a version known to an XML processor, it may validate the document. Otherwise, it is optional to validate the document, but the document must be well formed."  [Side note: XML documents are always required to be well-formed.  The 1.0/1.1 statement also appears to apply at the individual part (root-element) level and not for the overall ODF document, something I have clarified in the proposed statement for 1.2.]

I agree that the statement is not normative and is, at best, a note.

I offer a restatement here.  If that doesn't work, I welcome a suggested replacement.  If necessary, we can delete this part altogether, although I hope this is sufficiently informative as well as non-normative.

RESTATEMENT:

[January 9 proposed wikiText:[
'''Note:''' Notwithstanding the occurrences of office:version="1.2", an ODF 1.2 document that relies solely on features of a previous ODF specification that are upward-compatible into ODF 1.2 can also be interpreted correctly under that earlier specification by taking the office:version attribute as everywhere omitted or as identifying that earlier version instead.  See also Appendix H, Changes From Previous Specification Versions (Non-Normative).  
]]

NOTE 1: I am using "can" here in the JTC1 language sense of "it is possible that" without any expression of requirement or permission.  I removed reference to processors of any kind.

NOTE 2: Appendix H is the correct position of the section in OpenDocument-v1.2-draft7-13.  I would hope that we will identify breaking changes where an earlier feature is not upward compatible into ODF 1.2, although this statement does not obligate us to be comprehensive about that.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00041.html
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 05:24
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: 'ODF TC List'; Rob Weir
Subject: Re: [office] ODF 1.2 Version Significance Proposal

Hi Dennis,

thank you very much for the proposal. Please find a couple of
comments/suggestions below:

On 05.01.09 01:24, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
[ ... ]
> 
> An ODF 1.2 document, notwithstanding occurrences of office:version="1.2", CAN also be acceptable as a document of a previous ODF version when only ODF 1.2-compatible features of the earlier version are relied upon for the ODF 1.2 document.  

Whether an ODF 1.2 document is acceptable as an ODF 1.1 or ODF 1.0
document depends on whether it meets the conformance criteria we have
defined in these specifications, and only on that. We are defining ODF
1.2 here. We have defined ODF 1.2 in a way that an ODF 1.2 document can
be understood by an ODF 1.0/1.1 application, that's true. But we are not
re-defining or replacing ODF 1.0/1.1 in the meaning that the ODF 1.2
specification in addition to ODF 1.2 also defines what an ODF 1.1 and
ODF 1.0 document is. It only defines what ODF 1.2 is, while the ODF 1.1
specification continues to define what an ODF 1.1 document is, and the 
ODF 1.0 specification continues to define what an ODF 1.0 document is.

Having that said. I think it may be reasonable to provide the 
information that an ODF 1.2 document under certain circumstances is 
understood by an ODF 1.0/1.1 application, but I think we should do so as 
a note rather than as a normative statement.

[ ... ]



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