[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-comment] conformance proposal, remarks
Hi Bart, thank you very much for your remarks. On 01/17/09 00:56, Hanssens Bart wrote: > > Hi, > > > having read the conformance proposal, 7th iteration, I do have a > few remarks/suggestions: > > > - I'd go for the single-conformance level (the alternative proposal), > rather than having both a "conformance" and a "loosely conformance" > level That is my personal preference, too. > > (By the way, given the improvements on metadata and other areas in > ODF 1.2, why not create just one single strict schema, instead of > having both a "regular" and a "strict" schema ? The work on the schema is not completed in this regard. If the TC agrees that we define only one conformance level, then a single schema in any case would be sufficient, and one of my next actions would be to prepare that. > Would people be missing features that can be expressed in ODF, but > not in "strict" ODF ?) No, they would not. > > > - Producer, G.1.1: "shall not intentionally create any non-conforming > OpenDocument document of any kind." > > Remove "intentionally", we're not investigating a murder here :-) > Otherwise it suggests that is more or less OK if you accidentally > create a non-conforming document... To be honest, I have no clear opinion here. We initially did not have the "intentionally" in the sentence. I'm fine with having it in the sentence but also with omitting it. > > > - "It may create documents that do not conform to this specification > if and only if denotes these by a term that makes clear that these > are not OpenDocument v1.2 documents." > > I'm a bit puzzled here... > So in case of a word processor, that would translate to making a > distinction between document types in the "save as..." dialog box, > right ? > Or is this about using the correct office:version and xmlns in the > XML itself ? Both. We actually have three cases. The one where an application additionally stores other (non-ODF) formats, the one where it additionally stores future and/or older ODF versions, and the one there it stores ODF with extensions. The first two are valid in any case. The third more or less equals the first one. If an application stores data in a format which is based on ODF but uses extensions which are outside the extension mechanisms that ODF has, then this formally is like storing it in any other format. What we have to find is a language that makes it clear that all our conformance clauses apply to documents that are said to be OpenDocumenmt documents. If an application wants to save documents in other formats additionally, it must be permitted to do so. It only must not call these documents OpenDocument documents. > > (+ there seem to be some copy/paste glitches at the start of G 1.2) > > > > - Consumer P1.1: "It may be able to parse and interpret OpenDocument > documents stored as single XML document." > > I would suggest to change this to "shall" (if a document is produced by > a conforming producer, I'm expecting any conforming reader to be able > to read it) Well, supporting ODF that is not stored using a package is some overhead, and I doubt that any application that "supports" ODF has an interest in or benefit from implementing this variant. That's why its support is optional. Best regards Michael > > > Best regards, > > Bart > -- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]