[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Regarding Conformance Clauses
Thanks for this summary. The language I would like to see retained, even if there is no loosely-conforming category, is a definition of foreign elements with the agreed rules on how they MAY be accepted, and what SHOULD be done when they are accepted and not understood by a conformant processor. In addition, I would like to see a clause that suggests that conformant processors SHOULD treat those conformant-document elements and attributes that are not supported by a conformant implementation as foreign. (At the moment, we simply say nothing about this case.) I have no problem with there being a single schema that is the same as what the strict schema is intended to accomplish. I think that is a good idea. It would be much cleaner and understandable. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 07:09 To: OpenDocument Mailing List Subject: [office] Regarding Conformance Clauses [ ... ] 1. The only extension point that ODF 1.1 has that is effected by my conformance clause proposals are foreign elements and attributes, that is, elements and attributes that are not defined by the ODF specification, and that may be mixed with ODF elements. Other extension points are not covered by the proposal. 2. Both proposals define a conforming document as one that does not contain any foreign elements and attributes. Both proposal require that a conforming ODF producer is able to produce conforming documents, and both proposals say that a conforming consumer should able to parse documents that contain foreign elements (The last should could be turned into a shall if this is the concern). So, the only (intended) differences between the two proposals are that in the first one, a document that contains foreign elements or attributes may be called a "loosely conforming ODF document", and that a conforming producer may create loosely conforming document in addition to conforming ones. [ ... ] 3. ODF 1.1 defines two schemas, a strict schema and a non-strict schema. The difference between the two schemas is that the non-strict schema allows arbitrary elements and attributes within <office:meta> and the <style:*-properties> elements, while the strict schema does not. This means that an ODF 1.1 document that validates against the strict schema does not contain any foreign elements, while one that does validate against the non-strict schema may contain foreign elements within <office:meta> and the <style:*-properties> elements. Since ODF 1.1 allows foreign elements and attributes anywhere, the non-strict schema actually would not have been required. To make things simpler, I would suggest that we define a single schema for ODF 1.2. [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]