[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
Duane, There are many XML-level processing models that might apply, including ad hoc ones that Michael suggests may be common for ODF implementations (for performance reasons, I presume). For the level at which we are talking in regard to conformance and foreign elements and attributes, it is about what might be accepted as additional markup not accounted for in the strict schema, but related to the strict schema in a particular way. We are talking about what the behavior may be, not how it is achieved. Since the provision has been in since ODF 1.0, anyone who has foreign elements and attributes or who encounters them without rejecting the document has made some sort of provision. My experience is that these extensions (and those of unimplemented ODF features) tend to simply be ignored and, if the document is touched in any way, they disappear from the saved modification. See our investigation of style:wrap-dynamic-threshold http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00109.html Duane's comment about buzzword is interesting though. If the XMP is in a separate item of the package, is it accounted for in manifest.xml? There are security reasons why a processor that does not recognize that item may well strip it to avoid perpetuating unknown content in a document. There are also matters of prudence in the case of documents having some significance as records and Easter eggs and other goodies are frowned upon. I also believe we do not have a conformance requirement on what is in a package beyond what is essential to a given document structure, but I must go look. (I will be doing that over on OIC TC anyhow.) If the XMP is injected into one of the ODF XML documents, which one? Is it made an element or elements in metadata.xml or is it placed in or near the document root element of content.xml? This matters for 1.0/1.1 because there are different provisions for metadata than for content. For ODF 1.2, it's not clear to me where the TC is leaning on that one and you might want to express your preference in the matter. - Dennis PS: It might be good to publish some sort of profile on your incorporation of XMP into ODF documents so that others could decide to recognize the material and even update it properly, yes? Is this on the Adobe site somewhere? -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00170.html Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 09:27 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; David Faure Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Law of Unintended Consequences I think that this does not recognize how XML is processed in general. There are two parts - the parse and the call back actions. [ ... ] One other issue us saving. If the in memory representation us used to be saved, the extended elements can be saved to but you have to be careful not to write applications that strip out the extensions (saving it as ODF_Strict). This is an implementation choice but I would add a warning note to make sure implementers are aware of this. For example, buzzword (an adobe online word processer) may add XML metadata. If we write and pass an ODF document to koffice and koffice strips off the XMP, that is probably not what the author wants. My $0.02 CAD. Duane On 20/01/09 9:39 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00165.html [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]