OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Proposed Use case -- Interoperability invertical and horizontal ODF markets

So we're all on the same page, note that ODF 1.1 section 1.5 says "Conforming applications that read and write documents may preserve foreign elements and attributes."

I was mistaken when I said it was a "should", and others were mistaken when they claimed it was a "shall".  It really is a silly statement, one I'd like to see removed in ODF 1.2.  We don't make any similar statement about preserving footnotes, or chart legends or any other content of ODF.  I don't see why we should single out foreign elements and attributes.  

In any case, this could be tested in a conformance test and a information message emitted on whether or not the application preserves foreign elements and attributes.  Since this provision is not expressed as a recommendation or requirement, we have no basis (in the standard) for issuing a warning or an error.

More in depth tests of this could be done within interoperability tests.  However, since there are no applications which I am aware of which actually write out foreign elements and attributes, this task would have zero practical effect toward improving interoperability and would tend to be rather low on my priority scale, especially considering that ODF 1.2 will have a much more robust metadata framework.


Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122

"Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com> wrote on 06/27/2008 06:33:28 AM:

> Drop the  Woffle marbux its unrequired.
> Totally unneeded.
> From  robert_weir@us.ibm.com  for charter "To improve
> interoperability among ODF implementations".
> You cannot have interoperability when people are doing non
> documented things.  So its meaning is 100 percent clear.  If a app
> is doing undocumented things suffer.
> "OOo 2.x is non-conformant because it eats all foreign elements and
> attributes other than its own and paragraphs and text
> spans."  It might be.   Now applications are equally non-conformant
> if they need them to render document.  So who is wrong.  Both are
> marbux.  Its not a life saver.  Reason OpenOffice eating them is
> forcing conformance and interoperability because undocumented stuff
> is getting deleted.  So its not 100 percent in the wrong.   The
> applications stuff up because there non standard setting have been
> deleted don't have a leg to stand on.  You cannot make a case that
> doing these non documented things are good for the interperability
> of ODF.  So suffer and fix it.  Other applications would be
> perfectly in there rights to do the same to OpenOffice.
> If the ODF supporting applications want to have a deleting war over
> non documented bits so be it.   TC goal is interoperability and a
> war like that will help it.
> Now since we are the ODF TC.   Documents we should use at prime is
> the ODF spec.   Making sure applications are following the spec to
> the max of there ablity does improve interoperabilty.
> TC are perfectly allows to use Draft specs for guidence if current
> specs has disputes.   Even write test using the Draft specs before
> the specs are finally approved as long as the test clearly tell
> people of that.
> So stop attacking and get your house in order marbux.
> Peter Dolding

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]