Discussions belong on the "opendocument-users" lists, not the
"office-comment" list. The office-comment list is only for public
feedback on the ODF standard and drafts. The Fellowship also has a
discussion list. Perhaps they can explain why their validator requires
styles.xml, etc. You can join it here:
http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
But as an aside, if you are experimenting, don't forget that you can
ignore packaging altogether and have a single XML file with
<office:document> as the root element. That gives you the simplest
possible "hello world" document.
-Rob
"Jesper Lund Stocholm" <> wrote on 08/05/2008
04:00:45 AM:
>
> 08/05/2008 04:05 AM
>
> I am trying to figure out what the mandatory parts of an ODF-package are
-
> but I can't seem to find a clear answer. If I read ODF 1.0 (section 2.1
> about document roots and section 17 about the package) I would conclude
> this:
>
> Required parts of an ODF-package is the following streams in the
> ZIP-archive:
>
> content.xml
> META-INF/manifest.xml
>
> (actually the content.xml-stream is required only by reference
(induction?)
> since it contains the document data itself and the stream containing the
> document must be named "content.xml". I would argue though, that given
> strict reading of the spec a document would be conformant when omitting
the
> content.xml-stream as well).
>
> The problem with the above is that it goes against the output of the
> OpenDocumentFellowship-validator (it requires the styles.xml,
settings.xml
> and meta.xml-files and mimetype-file) as well as the current
implementation
> of all application suites supporting ODF.
>
> Can you (anyone) confirm the above? It seems to me that a KISS/simple
> "Hello-world"-ODF document would be perfectly valid if it only contained
the
> content.xml-file as well as the manifest-file.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> /Jesper Lund Stocholm
> www.idippedut.dk
