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


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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
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

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.


On 20/01/09 9:39 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
[ ... ]

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