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] Regarding Conformance Clauses


1. I am interested in having the foreign element definition and the
processing procedure be the same as the one in ODF 1.1.  The one proposed
for ODF 1.2 is different and also flips the meaning of the
office:process-content attribute.  I see no justification for making that a
breaking change, especially if such foreign elements were seen by an ODF 1.1
processor, or (originally) created by an ODF 1.1 processor.  Maybe we should
look at the Document Processing portion of the proposal separately, after
deciding if any of it belongs in the conformance section.

2. With regard to P1.3, I think the statement should be stronger.  I think
that if a conforming consumer does not interpret the semantics of an
element, attribute, or attribute value, it SHOULD behave as if that were a
foreign element, attribute, or attribute value (not sure there is such a
thing as a foreign attribute value though).  We should also consider whether
office:process-content could be used in those cases by document producers in
advising less-capable consumers of an appropriate action. 

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 01:11
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: 'OpenDocument Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [office] Regarding Conformance Clauses

Hi Dennis,

On 01/20/09 18:24, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 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
> are accepted and not understood by a conformant processor.

Sorry, but which language in the ODF 1.1 spec are you referring to? 
Which statement in the current proposals is unclear in this regard?

> 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.)

What we say is "(P1.3) It [a conforming consumer] shall be able to parse 
any conforming OpenDocument documents, but it need not interpret the 
semantics of all elements, attributes and attribute values."

What is missing?

> I have no problem with there being a single schema that is the same as
> the strict schema is intended to accomplish.  I think that is a good idea.
> It would be much cleaner and understandable.

Best regards


>  - 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.
> [ ... ]

Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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