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: Re: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Law of Unintended Consequences

On Tuesday 20 January 2009, robert_weir@us.ibm.com 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, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Qt Software @ Nokia to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).

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