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 Jirka,

On 02/02/09 18:17, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
>> There are two products defined by the ODF standard:  documents and 
>> producers/consumers.  My reading of Michael's conformance proposal is that 
>> all conformant ODF 1.0 documents will remain conformant ODF 1.2 documents, 
>> and a subset of conformant ODF 1.0 documents will be conformant to the 
>> strict class of ODF 1.2 documents.  So no user of ODF 1.0 who has 
>> conformant ODF 1.0 documents will see their documents become 
>> non-conformant.
> I don't think so. In ODF 1.0 (ISO/IEC 26300:2006) is written:

You are right. The 8th iteration has no conformance mode for documents 
that contain foreign elements and attributes outside the <office:meta> 
and <style:*-properties> elements. This was still the case in the 7th 
iteration. I changed that, because after evaluating that has been 
discussed in the TC calls and on the list, it was my understanding that 
the concern was only that foreign elements have been disallowed within 
these to elements, but not that they have been disallowed elsewhere.

>>> If there should be strict conformance in ODF to support simplistic
>>> applications that do not have to take care about foreign extensions then
>>> there should be also another conformance level which will allow foreign
>>> elements/attributes and will guarantee roundtripping of them.
>> OK.  I believe Michael's proposal has that.  He has two conformance 
>> classes for documents, one which is strict and once which is merely 
>> labeled "conformant" (maybe we should call it "loose"?).  
> I think that problem is that conformance definition here refers to the
> schema which doesn't allow foreign elements/attributes. Might be this
> was not intentional? Might be this nuance was lost during evaluating
> NVDL and then dropping it for now? I don't know.

The ODF schemas did never allow foreign elements, except for the two 
elements I've mentioned above, even not in the ODF 1.0 and 1.1 schemas. 
That they may occur was always something that was just said in the prose.

For <office:meta> and <style:*-properties> the (non strict) schemas did 
allow any content, which means that not even the elements and attributes 
  defined by ODF were validated using these schemas. This was only the 
case when the strict schema was used for validation.

Best regards

> 			Jirka

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

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