RE: [office] Conforming OpenDocument Text Document, etc. [Take 2]

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

A few tidbits:

1. The section number 1.4.2.5 is used four times.  The second through fourth
consecutive occurrences are obviously meant to be 1.4.2.6, 1.4.2.7, and
1.4.2.8, respectively.  I noticed this in the previous version and then I
forgot to say anything about it.  My apologies.

2. The (Dx.1) paragraphs (x = 3 .. 8) should probably begin with something
like "If the document is represented using a single XML document, the root
<office:document> element shall ..." to be parallel with the conditionality
of the (Dx.2) paragraphs.  (I have not reviewed the rules for all of those
flavors to confirm that non-trivial non-package representations are actually
possible in every case, but shall not worry about that at this point on
faith that there are useful valid instances.  The language works either
way.)

3. Are we intentionally omitting templates as corresponding to any of these?
Just a question.  Conforming templates strike me as interesting for
interoperability arrangements.  I can sympathize with that being one
conformance target too far.

4. I assume that this language is proposed to be inserted in cd01-rev01
section 1.4.2 following subsection 1.4.2.2, with the appropriate bold-face
rendering of conformance terms.

5. I endorse your capitalizations: Conforming OpenDocument Document,
Conforming OpenDocument Text Document, etc., establishing these proper nouns
as tied to the conformance target and language.  IMPORTANT NOTE: this
convention is not consistently honored elsewhere in section 1.4 and we
should do so (e.g., it is "conformant OpenDocument document" in conformance
clause (D1), not "Conformant OpenDocument Document," and common terms rather
than proper noun phrases are used elsewhere with regard to "extended
document," and so on with regard to consumers, producers, and processors).
Having agreed on the proper names, we will need to be careful elsewhere in
the document when conformance targets are called out in normative
statements.  

6. Also, I notice that the capitalization is not consistent everywhere in
these additions either. 

7. When these conformance targets were first proposed, I was not that
disturbed by the idea that these targets have no extended-document
counterparts.  I am becoming less comfortable with that idea.  I am also
concerned that, even if there is no defined target, people will talk about
OpehDocument Text Documents, and [E/e]xtended OpenDocument Text Documents
and other permutations in a casual way.  I'm not sure that we are done with
this, although I understand that goes beyond the reach of this specific
proposal.  Is there anything afoot with regard to simplifying the
nomenclature while also helping to avoid confusion of casual/careless use
with named conformance targets?

 - Dennis

[Wondering momentarily how translators deal with proper names for languages
that don't use Roman-alphabet capitalization conventions and moves on,
musing that, like XML namespace local names and the specification prefix
bindings, these are not to be translated?]

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200903/msg00112.html
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 18:48
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [office] Conforming OpenDocument Text Document, etc. [Take 2]

This is the 2nd iteration of the proposal I made back on the 16th: 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200903/msg00069.html

Based on feedback from the list I've made a couple changes:

1) I've removed the requirement that the files use particular extensions.
2) I've removed the requirement that they files limited themselves to the 
feature sets expressed in the appendix. 
3) I've added a requirement that the document of a particular type 
actually have the corresponding child element of <office:body>

-Rob

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4.2.3 Conforming OpenDocument Text Document

(D3) A conforming OpenDocument Text Document shall meet all requirements 
of a Conforming OpenDocument Document, as well as the following additional 
requirements:

(D3.1) The <office:document> element shall have an office:mimetype 
attribute with the value "application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text".
(D3.2) If the document is OpenDocument package then it shall contain a 
mimetype stream containing the string 
"application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text".
(D3.3) The <office:body> element shall have the child element 
<office:text>


1.4.2.4 Conforming OpenDocument Spreadsheet Document

(D4) A conforming OpenDocument Spreadsheet Document shall meet all 
requirements of a Conforming OpenDocument Document, as well as the 
following additional requirements:

(D4.1) The <office:document> element shall have an office:mimetype 
attribute with the value "application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet".
(D4.2) If the document is OpenDocument package then it shall contain a 
mimetype stream containing the string 
"application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet".
[ ... ]

1.4.2.5 Conforming OpenDocument Drawing Document

[ ... ]

1.4.2.5 Conforming OpenDocument Presentation Document

[ ... ]

1.4.2.5 Conforming OpenDocument Chart Document

[ ... ]

1.4.2.5 Conforming OpenDocument Image Document

[ ... ]