[OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OFFICE-2620) Public Comment:Comments from Jacques Durand on ODF for Office Applications Part 1

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2620?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18941#action_18941 ] 

Michael Brauer commented on OFFICE-2620:
----------------------------------------

re [1]: This is covered by OFFICE-2211

re [2]: I suggest we just use the element names has column headings:
meta­data -> <office:meta>
app. sett. -> <office:settings>
script -> <office:scripts> 
font decls -> <office:font-face-decls>
style -> <office:styles>
auto style -> <office:automatic-styles>
mast style -> <office:master-styles>
body -> <office:body>

re [3]: We may adapt that suggestion

re [4]: We do not have an term for files within a package. Affects only 3.1.3.2 - 3.1.3.5. I suggest we just say: "The file within the package"

re [5]: Remove "the" as suggested

re [6]: (D1.1.2) clarifies already that addition files are allowed: the package shall contain at least one of the following files: content.xml and styles.xml. It may contain additional files, including files named settings.xml and meta.xml.

re [7]: I think we have this already in (D1), but have no objections to add a clause like:
(D1.2.5) The file's content shall adhere to the requirements in this specification that are related to its XML root element.
Patrick: I would like to leave it up to you to decide whether the general statement in (D1) is sufficient or not.

re [8]: The more I think about it, I believe we should remove that clause and (P2.1). The idea was to somehow make sure that an ODF producer that produces some conforming document does not also produce intentionally non conforming documents. But I think we can't enforce this at the level of the ODF specification. Therefore: Suggestion: Remove P1.1 and P2.1

re [9]: Suggestion: 
(C1) "A Conforming OpenDocument Consumer is a program that can parse and interpret
OpenDocument documents *according to the semantics defined by this specification*, and that meets the following additional requirements:


> Public Comment: Comments from Jacques Durand on ODF for Office Applications Part 1
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OFFICE-2620
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2620
>             Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Conformance, General
>    Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD 4 
>            Reporter: Robert Weir 
>            Priority: Blocker
>
> Copied from office-comment list
> Original author: "Jacques R. Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> 
> Original date: 12 Mar 2010 23:18:24 -0000
> Original URL: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/201003/msg00004.html
> The text of the comment is as follows:
> [1]- p83: Section 2 "Scope" seems to be incomplete.
>  
> [2]- the labels for columns in Table 6 should be concisely explained/defined in a
> small terminology list in same section.
>  
> [3]- section 3.16 Document and Macro Signatures
> could be more clearly retitled: "Document Signature and Macro Signature" ?
>  
> [4]- section  3.1.3.2 and similar sections: the expression "package file" is misleading as it
> may suggest that the "file" is a "package" which is not the case:
> "...The package file for the <office:document-content> is content.xml. ..."
> Instead, we are talking of a file inside a package:
> how about "...The package component file for the..."
>  
> [5]- section  7.4.1: In: "...The variable declarations are collected in container elements
> for the each variable type. "
> remove "the" in "..for [the] each variable..."
>  
> [6]- Conformance Clause (1):
> D1.2.2. " XML root elements of the files shall be ..."
> Is an ODF package allowed to contain other additional files besides content.xml, meta.xml, etc?
> (non described in this specification)?
> This conf clause does not prohibit that, I assume it is OK (D.1.1.2 suggests it).
> If yes, that should be made clearer and also why that may be useful.
>  
> [7]- Conformance Clause (2):
> D1.2: "If the document is an OpenDocument package, then the following requirements shall be met...
> for its contained files named ..."
> The Clause should probably say that in addition:
> "each file's content shall adhere to the requirements in this specification
> that are related to its XML root element (in addition to schema validation)".
> There are indeed requirements that are not entirely captured by schema validation
> (e.g. well-formedness of marks and indexes, etc.)
>  
> [8]- Conformance Clause (3):
> P1.1: "(P1.1) It shall not produce any non-conforming OpenDocument document of any kind."
> That is a strange requirement: what is a "non-conforming OpenDocument document "?
> DO we mean here more precisely: "shall not produce any document containing ODF namespaces,
> that is not itself a conforming OpenDocument document."
> (NOTE: an exception to this could be that the Producer may produce some folder document
> or some manifest that contains ODF namespaces, e.g. referencing existing ODF docs.)
>  
> [9]- Conformance Clause (4): Consumer Conformance
> (C1) "A Conforming OpenDocument Consumer is a program that can parse and interpret
> OpenDocument documents, and that meets the following additional requirements:"
> The notion of "interpeting" and ODF doc should be better defined.
> Are we talking of some kind of "rendering"? According to what rules?

-- 
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