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

On 09.02.09 12:28, David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 09 February 2009, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> Because file extensions are not defined normatively
> They are, actually, but not in OpenDocument - they are defined normatively at IANA,
> based on a submission by this TC.

This is correct, except that it is OASIS who submits them to IANA.
>> application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text+ext.
> I don't like this - it will break existing applications. And I haven't seen a justification
> of _why_ we should do this. What is the goal there?

After having thought about this for a while, I agree.

At least the extensions for documents that do not contain foreign 
elements should remain the same.

And for those that contain foreign elements: Well, I'm not sure whether 
one mimetype would be really sufficient. A vendor A may want to differ 
documents that use its own foreign elements from the documents that 
contains other foreign elements. So, every vendor may actually want to 
register its own mimetypes and extensions.

Please note that this is permitted anyway, regardless whether we define 
a "loose" conformance mode or not.

> Or is this about style-*-properties extensions? I have to name koffice-produced
> files *.odxt just because I save a harmless koffice:frame-behavior-on-new-page
> style attribute in the style properties, and because of this file extension/mimetype
> those documents will not be opened by any of the existing OpenDocument
> processors out there? This makes no sense. We are not changing the mimetype
> for each version of ODF either, even though the contents are slightly different,
> that's the whole point of XML's extensibility: a ODF-1.1 processor can give a shot
> at parsing a ODF-1.2 document, so it can also give a shot at parsing a ODF-1.2
> document "with a few extensions", can't it? A new mimetype prevents that completely
> (and will confuse users for no apparent benefit).
> Let us define one thing: a document is conformant if it validates against
> the schema (=> easy yes/no result), and in the schema we allow extensions
> in style-*-properties and metadata.

I would like to keep the questions whether there should be an 
extensibility mechanism for *-properties separate. For details, see one 
of my previous mails.

Best regards


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]