[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Issue Comment Edited: (OFFICE-2072) PublicComment: ODF 1.2 CD03 2.11.2 <config:config-item-set>
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2072?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16253#action_16253 ]
Michael Brauer edited comment on OFFICE-2072 at 10/9/09 9:19 AM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of <office:settings> and its child element is to allow implementations to store specific configuration settings. It is not meant to be an extension mechanism.
Most office application provide a set of configuration settings. Some may be controlled on a document level, and therefore need to be stored in documents. All have in common that they somehow effect the functionality of the implementation. Otherwise the setting itself would not be required. So, requesting that the functionality of an application in regard to a document is not modified does not work.
Where are many ways how a configuration setting may influence the behavior of a document, and it is sometimes difficult to define when something is "just a setting" or "already a feature". To use the printer settings as example. The comment says that this is a proper use of the application settings, probably because the printer settings seems not to modify the layout. But office applications may use the metrics of printer fonts for the text formatting (until a few years ago this was common). If an application does that, even the printer setting may modify the layout. Further, there may be applications whose main purpose is printing. These may be more affected by printer settings when by a setting that controls a detail of the layout engine that is used.
Even settings like a path to the spell checker that is used may have an impact on the document, if a text formatting engine supports hyphenation.
What also has to be considered is the question whether or not a particular setting may ever be implemented by another application. For a setting for a "legacy" feature of a particular implementation, it is for instance unlikely that any other implementation will ever implement it, and adding it to a standard only because there are a few dozens of documents that use that feature, may not be the correct action.
But having all that said: The TC has already discussed that there may be implementation settings which are of interest for more than one application. This therefore may become a topic for ODF-Next.
was (Author: michael.brauer):
The purpose of <office:settings> and its child element is to allow implementations to store specific configuration settings. It is not meant to be an extension mechanism.
Most office application provide a set of configuration settings. Some may be controlled on a document level, and therefore need to be stored in documents. All have in common that they somehow effect the functionality of the implementation. Otherwise the setting itself would not be required. So, requesting that the functionality of an application in regard to a document is not modified does not work.
Where are many ways how a configuration setting may influence the behavior of a document, and it is sometimes difficult when something is "just a setting" or "already a feature". To use the printer settings as example. The comment says that this is a proper use of the application settings, probably because the printer settings seems not to modify the layout. But office applications may use the metrics of printer fonts for the text formatting (until a few years ago this was common). If an application does that, even the printer setting may modify the layout. Further, there may be applications whose main purpose is printing. These may be more affected by printer settings when by a setting that controls a detail of the layout engine that is used.
Even settings like a path to the spell checker that is used may have an impact on the document, if a text formatting engine supports hyphenation.
What also has to be considered is the question whether or not a particular setting may ever be implemented by another application. For a setting for a "legacy" feature of a particular implementation, it is for instance unlikely that any other implementation will ever implement it, and adding it to a standard only because are a few dozens of document that use that feature, may not be the correct action.
But having all that said: The TC has already discussed that there may be implementation settings which are of interest for more than one application. This therefore may become a topic for ODF-Next.
> Public Comment: ODF 1.2 CD03 2.11.2 <config:config-item-set>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFFICE-2072
> URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2072
> Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: ODF 1.2
> Reporter: Robert Weir
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: ODF-Next
>
>
> Copied from office-comment list
> Original author: Jesper Lund Stocholm <4a4553504552@gmail.com>
> Original date: 29 Sep 2009 21:04:36 -0000
> Original URL: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200909/msg00020.html
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]