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: Clarifications,Extension features


On 09.02.09 18:24, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Monday 9. February 2009 10:33:13 ext Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - 
> Hamburg wrote:
>> It has multiple times drawn a connection between foreign elements and
>> customXML in the sense of OOXML. While allowing foreign elements and
>> attributes would indeed permit embedding custom XML instances into an
>> ODF document, I don't think that the current definition of foreign
>> elements and attributes in ODF (1.1) is a proper definition of a
>> customXML feature. For a customXML feature I would at least expect an
>> identification mechanism, and more important, a list of those places
>> where they can be actually embedded. Without that: How should an
>> application know that some foreign elements are in fact custom schemas?
>> Even an application that has such a feature implemented would not know
>> whether or not a set of foreign elements is a custom schema, or any
>> other data which another application has saved where. And how should one
>> application implement a customXML feature that is compatible with the
>> one of another application if it does not know where the other
>> application support customXML and which of the XML elements and
>> attributes are administrative data for the feature and those real custom
>> data?
> Loads of questions :)
> I'm not sure what your opinion is on this as you didn't answer those questions 
> here and thus I'm not sure if we agree or not.

The questions above are just the questions that arise if foreign 
elements and attributes are used to extend ODF. There is, in my opinion, 
no answer to these questions, because foreign elements and attributes 
have no semantics.

> Could you tell me what your opinion on the matter is?

I have no objections regarding extension mechanism, but think they must 
be properly defined. To provide an example: If we would identify a 
requirement for let's say allowing user defined drawing shapes, then we 
would need an extension mechanism for drawing shapes where ODF consumers 
at least can figure out that there is a user defined drawing shape. They 
can then display a replacement, or warn the user. If the user defined 
shape is only a foreign element, then there is nothing the consumer can 
do except ignoring it.

> I'm confused...
I hope this helps.


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]