[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Law of Unintended Consequences
On Tuesday 20 January 2009, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > But holding back the label of "conformant" is the primary > way to bring vendors to the table to propose and document such features. > If we just label everything conformant, than why would a vendor trouble > with the time and effort to get their proposals accepted formally into the > standard? Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? I understand that. But on the other hand, why should an implementation be marked as "non-conformant" just because it adds one tiny attribute in a style somewhere for mostly internal reasons? > But your point on editing hints versus content extensions is well taken. > Maybe there is some way we can formulate a conformance clause that takes > account of that. But I'd rather have an extension framework that handles > things like that in a structured way than to allow any XML anywhere. Right, in fact I think that allowing extensions in style properties is a given, while indeed allowing any element in the middle of content elements would just open the door to non-standard content. I think your ideas work well together: by only allowing extensions inside style properties, only additional settings to _existing_ content elements can be added, no actual new content. Of course styles can affect rendering as well as editing, but that's the impossible-to-draw line. -- David Faure, email@example.com, sponsored by Qt Software @ Nokia to work on KDE, Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).