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] Conformance Definitions

Hi Doug,

The conformance clause rewrite is triggered by a new OASIS requirement, in 
section 2.18 of the OASIS TC Process:  

When we agreed to limit the number of TC member proposals we would 
consider for ODF 1.2, we also agreed that we would continue to do changes 
required by OASIS.  This would include conformance work, putting the 
schema file together and confirming that it is valid, verifying the 
references to external specifications, verifying that all XML examples are 
well-formed, and other similar tasks. 

The conformance proposal is hardly new.  We're now on the 7th or 8th 
iteration of it, which Michael has been working on since at least last 
September when he posted the first draft (
)   So the work has been going on for a while, but perhaps not getting as 
much time on TC calls while we were working on the final member proposals.

Does that clear it up, Doug?


Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com> wrote on 01/30/2009 05:46:48 PM:
> I'm surprised to see such a significant proposal being thrown into 
> ODF 1.2 after we spent much time in December selecting five specific
> proposals and agreeing that those would be the only ones considered 
> for ODF 1.2.  Has something changed in recent weeks?  We were all 
> told in December that no new proposals would be considered for 1.2 
> other than the five we had selected, so it's not clear to me why 
> we're even discussing this one.  Can others also suggest new 
> proposals for 1.2 beyond the five we had selected?  Did we recently 
> agree to forego the process Rob outlined in December, which we all 
> agreed to at that time?
> Sorry if I've missed something here, as I've been a bit out of touch
> this week due to travel for SC34 WG4 meetings.  But as far as I can 
> tell, this is something that was raised verbally last week and is 
> going to a vote next week, which certainly doesn't match the process
> we have agreed to for wrapping up ODF 1.2.
> Regards,
> Doug
> Doug Mahugh | Office Interoperability | 425-707-1182 | 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:34 AM
> To: OpenDocument Mailing List
> Subject: [office] Conformance Definitions
> Dear TC members,
> first of all, I would like to thank you for the valuable feedback I got
> after we have discussed the proposal in the last TC call.
> It seems to me that there are no objects for having only a single
> conformance level which does not allow foreign elements and attributes,
> but that there are concerns to immediately forbid foreign elements
> within <office:meta> and in particular also <*-properties> elements,
> where ODF 1.1 explicitly allowed these elements.
> I have updated the proposal[1] to reflect this, where I have taken the
> variant which did only define a single conformance level as basis.
> However, I have re-introduced the notion of a strictly conforming
> document, which means that there are two levels again. The one of a
> conforming document, and the one of  a strictly conforming document. A
> conforming document is one that does allow foreign elements and
> attributes within <office:meta> and <*-properties>, and only there,
> while a strictly conforming document does not allow foreign elements and
> attributes at all. The differentiation is made again using a strict and
> a non-strict schema. In this regards, there is no change from ODF 1.1.
> The proposal further
> - declares the use of foreign elements in <office:meta> and
> <*-properties> to be deprecated;
> - indirectly adds a requirement to document their use by declaring their
> semantic to be implementation defined.
> - adds a requirement that conforming producers must be able to produce
> strict conforming documents on demand.
> I would like to discuss the proposal, and in particular the three items
> above, in the next TC call. And unless the proposal requires larger
> modifications, I would like to ask for a ballot on the proposal in this
> call.
> Best regards
> Michael
> [1]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30932/conformance-
> definition-proposal-v7.odt
> --
> Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
> StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
> Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
> D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
> http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
> http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
> 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:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 

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