Re: [opendocument-users] RE: Foreign elements and attributes

[Jesper Lund Stocholm <4a4553504552@gmail.com>]

Hi guys,

2009/3/4 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>:
> Hi Rick,
>
> I take it that your suggestion is to redefine extended documents to only
> recognize foreign attributes (and foreign attribute values?).
> Foreign-element tolerance and rules for dealing with unsupported/unknown
> foreign elements (including the special process-content attribute) would no
> longer be included in the ODF specification.
>
> I find that to be an interesting simplification, especially with regard to
> the ease with which foreign attributes can be ignored.  There is an
> appealing tidiness to this case.

I think the "appealing tidiness" of Rick's suggestion should not be
overshadowed by some considerations on whether it solves the problem.

In my opinion it does not solve it. Please consider the Greek comment
14 on OOXML from the DIS29500 process. It dealt with the "equationXML"
attribute. I am particularly thinking about the
"hydration/dehydration"-technique described. Leaving a "loop-hole" in
allowing foreign attributes and not elements would only force
implementers to add all of their extensions in attribute values.

I think extensibility is really important - as does most of you, but
I'd much rather have the existing suggestion with two conformance
classes than one where extensions are distilled to fit into an
attribute value - which could be the consequence.

And I still haven't heard why implementers are not satisfied with a
solution where they get the ability to extend ODF to suit their needs.
They just need to call their document "Conformant to OpenDocument
Extened conformance class".

Why is that not good enough?

-- 
Jesper Lund Stocholm
www.idippedut.dk
SC34/WG4 http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/