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: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OFFICE-2156) [xml-names] ODF 1.2profile

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2156?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16449#action_16449 ] 

Dennis Hamilton commented on OFFICE-2156:

The change of [xml-names] to refer to RFC3986 instead of RFC2936 will be benign if there are no explicit dependencies in the ODF specifications on RFC2936 and RFC3986 is used.   If that is not the case, the difference between xml-names and the ODF specification will have to be reconciled.

Note that the proposal takes the simplest, most restrictive case with regard to namespace-valid XML documents.  

Taking this route, users of the Package specification can have looser requirements for their particular XML parts beyond the essential requirements for an ODF Package.  The tighter conditions come in along with Part 1.

> [xml-names] ODF 1.2 profile
> ---------------------------
>                 Key: OFFICE-2156
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2156
>             Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Conformance, External References, OpenFormula, Packaging
>    Affects Versions: ODF 1.2
>         Environment: This issue applies to the current (2009-10-21) drafts for ODF 1.2 Part 1 and ODF 1.2 Part 3.  The issue applies to ODF 1.2 Part 2 to the extent that any normative appeal to [xml-names] is not eliminated from that part of the specification.
>            Reporter: Dennis Hamilton
> For ODF 1.2, it is proposed that the [xml-names] reference be to "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation 16 August 2006," http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816/ (see OFFICE-2148).
> In previous versions of ODF specifictions, [xml-names] refers to "Namespaces in XML, W3C Recommendation 14 January 1999," http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
> Most differences are benign.  However, there are a few substantive differences that must be accounted for:
> 1. The 2006 W3C Recommendation SUPERSEDES the 1999 W3C Recommendation.  
> 2. Relative URIs are deprecated as namespace names.
> 3. There is clarification about where namespace declarrations must appear, and that may require a normative profile clause.
> 4. [RFC3986] is referenced instead of [RFC2396].
> 5. The Conformance clauses are different.
>     5.1 For XML documents, there are now two conformance classes:  namespace-well-formed documents and namespace-valid documents are all conformant documents.  The namespace-well-formed documents correspond exactly to the only conformant documents  of the 1999 specification.  The namespace-valid documents are namespace-well-formed documents for which it is the case that "no attributes with a declared type of ID, IDREF(S), ENTITY(IES), or NOTATION contain any colons."
>    5.1.1 For ODF 1.2 documents, a namespace-well-formed document could be defined as one in which every XML document that comprises the ODF document representation is a namespace-well-formed XML document.  For ODF 1.2 documents, a namespace-valid document could be defined as one in which every XML document that comprises the ODF document representation is a namespace-valid XML document.
>    5.1.2 We could then assert that a extended/conformant ODF 1.2 document shall be a namespace-well-formed document and that it should/shall be a namespace-valid document.
>   5.1.3 For ODF 1.2 packages, we might assert that at least those XML documents defined as essential to the package structure itself in Part 3 shall be namespace-well-formed XML documents and should/shall be namespace-valid XML documents.
>    5.2 There are now definitions for [xml-names] conforming processors.  A processor, in this context, is a subsystem that would be used by an ODF document consumer.  This does not directly express conditions on ODF consumers and producers.  Instead, we could profile ODF cases as follows,
>    5.2.1 An extended/conformant ODF producer could be defined such that it all XML documents that comprise the produced ODF document representation shall be namespace-well-formed XML documents and should/shall be namespace-valid XML documents. 
>   5.2.2 The existing definition of an extended/conformant ODF consumer should work without modification so long as it is expressed in terms of extended/conformant ODF documents.
>   5.3 [xml-names] now specifies the behavior of a processor when it detects that the namespace-validity or namespace-well-formedness conditions are not met.  It seems preferable to state, for ODF packages and ODF documents, that the behavior is implementation-dependent, since it is the ODF consumer that decides how to act on what a compliant [xml-names] processor reports to it, including how to make a meaningful report from the ODF implementation to the office software user.
> Related Issues:
> OFFICE-2148 on XML Namespaces
> OFFICE-2155 on Reconciling ODF 1.2 External References

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]