RE: [oic] Restrictions for meta:editing-duration

[Hanssens Bart <Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be>]

Hi Bernd,


a) ok, adding the word 'accumulated' would clarify the intention

b) and it indeed makes sense that a Producer only uses days, hours, minutes
and seconds because months and years is ambiguous

(we can safely ignore leap seconds and assume a day is always 86400 seconds,
and I don't think someone is actually interested in seconds)


c) I don't entirely agree on Consumers not having to deal with years, months, etc...

Suggestion: 

Producer SHALL only use days, hours, minutes and seconds

c1) Consumers SHALL be able to parse P0Y0M... (Y = 0, M =  0 is a bit useless,
but valid, and an implementation has to be able to parse this notation anyway if it
also supports meta:user-defined with a duration...)

c2) Consumers MAY treat Y = 365 and M = 30 days


d) more important: what is "editing time" ? Time between opening and saving  a
document in a non-readonly mode ?
Or (this makes more sense IMHO) from the first change, regardless if this change
is "undone", until saving the document. Does merely changing some styles counts
as editing ? Modifying application specific settings ? Signing ?  (I guess it does)

Best regards,

Bart

________________________________________
From: Bernd.Eilers@Sun.COM [Bernd.Eilers@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:04 AM
To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org; Michael Brauer; Oliver Specht; Michael Stahl
Subject: [oic] Restrictions for meta:editing-duration

Hi there!

Section 3.3.2.17 of

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/33633/OpenDocument-v1.2-part1-cd03.odt


defines <meta:editing-duration> Metadata as an element with a value that
conforms to section 3.2.6 of the xmlschema-2 Spezifikation.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#duration

I interpret the meaning of that value as the total accumulated time
during which the document was being edited. Since there can be any
number of gaps since the document was created where the document was not
edited and which would thus not contribute to this total editing time a
value here that would contain subelements specified as number of years
or months does IMHO not make sense although it would be allowed by
xmlschema-2 section 3.2.6. Number of years and months subelements in
such a value being present would only make sense if we would have a
value for some kind of elapsed time without non counted gaps in between
which is not the case here.

I would therefor like to have the following additional restrictions
added to Section 3.3.2.17 of the ODF 1.2 Spezifikation and as well to
the Interoperability Guidelines created by the ODF Interoperability and
Conformance TC (OIC) for ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2:


1.) A ODF Creator MUST NOT use a value here where number of years or
months subelements are being used although allowed by the xmlschema for
this element.


2.) A ODF Processor is NOT REQUIRED to be able to interpret such values
here where number of years or number of months subelements are present
although allowed by the xmlschema for this element.


There is at least one Office Application (OpenOffice.org) out there
which as an ODF Processor would not be able to handle
xmlschema-2/ISO8601 conform duration values at this place which would
contain months or years subelements.

Possibly section 3.3.2.17 of ODF1.2 should also clarify that the value
here is to be interpreted as accumulated total editing time and not as
elapsed time since document creation.

What do you think?


Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php