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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

opendocument-users message

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

Subject: RE: [opendocument-users] RE: office-comment text:id vs xml:id (ODF 1.2CD01)

Hello Alex,

Thank you.  This exchange has been very useful for improving my understanding of what is involved, and how experts such as yourself see it.

1. I have one strong reservation.

   1.1 I don't think making a clean break, or throwing a big switch on the ODF format and schema is a good idea.  This might work for an ODF 2.0, but I don't think it is sensible for a 1.x dot-release.  

   1.2 I am also concerned that there is already a legacy of ODF documents and processors (whatever their conformance might be) and there needs to be some responsibility taken how we preserve those documents and interoperability with those processors.  We are long past the era when people thought they could throw a big switch on information technology (although, ok, bureaucrats still try it).

2. I also don't think we have broken upward compatibility yet, although we do need to seriously look at affirming our commitment to not doing that and executing accordingly, no matter how much cd01 has breaking changes at the moment.

3. I am beginning to think, as a result of further study today, that we should prepare ODF for introduction of MCE Conformance (from IS 29500-3:2008).  

   3.1 I don't know that we could swallow MCE in 1.2, especially since there are implementers charging ahead with ODF 1.1 conformance and what they are expecting in 1.2 (more or less, probably less).  

   3.2 I do think we can word the treatment of elements and attributes identified in not-understood foreign namespaces, and the rules for office:preserve-content, such that (1) one could correctly introduce use of MCE as a foreign namespace in such a way that its future support in the specification would be consistent and (2) it would have natural use as a document extension of extended ODF documents for now, and (3) it could be introduced as an optional feature of either extended or conformant documents in the future without any disruption whatsoever.  [I love it when we can make something like that work.]

   3.3 I think we should immediately adopt the principles of MCE around not subsuming (or reusing) an earlier namespace unless all specifications of previously known namespace names are unchanged.  That is, if we insist on a breaking change, the changed element or attribute must reside in a new namespace.   I think this should apply to new elements and attributes as well, for obvious reasons of preservation of upward and downward compatibility (since office:version is too brittle and uninformative at the same time) and providing the blessings of foreign namespaces down-level.

4. I don't think this will help us with xml:id and with the problems of not knowing what the referential integrity conditions of ODF are because we don't know what the references are under the existing schemas.  But namespace versioning, as it were, might help us when we see what hole it is we are digging out of.  I suppose that is another way to come at the transition issue.  (I'm still thinking that will be a 2.0-level disruption.)

 - Dennis

This message is my personal observation and any similarity to an official position of the ODF TC or of OASIS is purely coincidental.  Were there such an official position, there'd be provision of a link to the official minutes or other approved document where the official position is expressed.

Dennis E. Hamilton
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org  


-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 09:30
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; ODF Users List
Cc: Makoto MURATA; marbux
Subject: [opendocument-users] RE: office-comment text:id vs xml:id (ODF 1.2CD01)

Dennis hi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
[ ... ]
> The problem that
> I'm observing is that the comingling of these with (or replacement by)
> xml:id is not thought out.

Right, the crappy old stuff needs to be ripped out and replaced with a working xml:id based scheme IMO.

(Or maybe there needs to be an "ODF transitional" where the bad practice stuff can be quarantined; if this kind of stuff comes to JTC 1 that's its likely fate, I supect.)
[ ... ]
>   1.2 It is my considered assessment that it is not possible to know
> the intention here, and the only way we will be able to figure it out
> is to document what some implementations actually do, abstract it
> usefully, and see if the ODF TC will actually agree that is what is
> required.  You can see that, absent such analysis, willy-nilly
> substituting xml:id everywhere is a serious problem.

That might be an approach ... it assumes there is a workable system lurking in the past. My inclination would be for a clean break here.
[ ... ]

My view is that the schema should be re-written based on a clear understanding of what are things being identified, and what are references to them. We've lost forwards compatibility from previous ODF versions anyway so might as well take the opportunity to go for it.

I wouldn't use IDREF(S) anywhere, but URI references everywhere, in the modern style.
[ ... ]

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