RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Law of UnintendedConsequences

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 01/19/2009 
01:10:56 PM:

> 
> Thanks Rob,
> 
> With regard to current allowances of implementation-defined features, 
the
> choice of schema matters.  The "strict" schema actually removes some 
areas
> where implementation-defined extensions were explicit in the schema 
itself.
> (And, for a different example, I assert that it is a feature, not a
> limitation, to have omission of table:protection-key-digest-algorithm 
mean
> that the hash function that produces the table:protection-key is
> implementation defined [and also upward-compatible from 1.1 as well].) 
> 

Agreed.  We need to know what the schema would look like from this change. 
 Are we removing all foreign attributes and elements, or keeping the 
specifically enumerated ones but eliminating the boundless case?  I don't 
think Michael's written proposal addressed that question specifically.

-Rob