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 Clause proposal, Version 8

I'm assuming that the strictly-conforming document does exclude the
office:meta "extensions" (that is, via the non-strict "any" provision) and
the style:*-properties extensions (via the non-strict "any" provision).  I
would expect their continued occurrence would be at the conformable-document
level and that this shouldn't disturb those who rely on them.  I had hoped
and presumed that there would be only one (normative) schema and a
different, stricter schema would not be required (normative or not).

It is surprising to hear that the RDF metadata extensions are seen as
extensions of that sort.  I thought we were viewing the RDF metadata
extensions as extensions beyond ODF 1.1 (just as OpenFormula can be viewed
as an extension) and they are not an extension at all in 1.2.  All of the
necessary schema and enabling element and attributes seem to be defined as
part of ODF 1.2.  Maybe we should just call it RDF Metadata from now on and
integrate it into the document model appropriately, even though its
occurrence is optional.  

Is the problem simply that we have been using extension in a different way
than in OASIS parlance and we should simply clean up our nomenclature?

 - Dennis 

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 15:16
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8

In OASIS parlance, strict conformance means "conformance of an 
implementation that employs only the requirements and/or functionality 
defined in the specification and no more (i.e., no extensions to the 
specification are implemented).  I'd take that to mean without namespace 
extensions of course, but also without RDF metadata extensions, without 
office:meta extensions, without style:*properties extensions, etc.   It is 
probably worth preserving (or at least reserving) "strict" for that 
designation, even if we don't formally put it in release 1.2. 

Or think of it this way, if we allowed some kinds of extensions in strict, 
then what do we call a document that has no extensions? 


[ ... ]

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