Hi Dennis,
"Dennis E. Hamilton" <> wrote on 10/28/2008 12:03:34 AM:
> From:
>
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
>
> To:
>
> <>
>
> Cc:
>
> Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM@IBMCN
>
> Date:
>
> 10/27/2008 09:04 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: [office] preferred view mode upon opening document
>
> In the ODF TC Call, there was a request for clarification of the <choice>
> rule for manifest:preferred-view-mode and the passage beginning "Beyond
> that, ... ."
>
> Here is my recommendation for changes to the text to clarify what is
> intended:
>
> In the current proposal,
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/proposal%3Aauto-play_presentation_file_for
> mat
>
> Under "(1) simple option", change
> "Add an attribute <presentation:auto-slide-show> ..."
> to
> "Add an attribute presentation:auto-slide-show ..."
option 1 will not be considered again since most of members prefer the extended option. Anyway, thanks.
>
> Under "(2) extended option"
> in the added paragraph on "Preferred View Mode" replace the sentence
> "Beyond that, a namespaced value is defined to enable the specific
> application to customize its preferred view mode."
> with
> "Alternatively, a namespaced value may be used to specify a custom value for
> the preferred view mode."
I think this wording is better than the original one, thanks.
>
> I also suggest that the the sentence
> "No default value is defined, and the way ... undefined."
> be replaced by the two sentences
> "There is no default value. The behavior of application software is not
> specified for cases where manifest:preferred-view-mode is absent or the
> value is one not provided for."
>
> This last change is intended to cover situations where a custom value is not
> known to the implementation as well as when a well-known value is
> inappropriate or simply not supported.
Agree, this will be more extensible:)
>I avoided use of "undefined" because
> this can be taken to mean that some sort of failure or rejection of the
> document is also an option.
Agree, I am not English native speaker, not aware this sensitive meaning.
>
> It seems valuable that the down-level behavior of ignoring the attribute is
> also consistent with the defined behavior for 1.2.
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: I did not suggest any particular way that agreement on custom values
> might occur. It seems simplest to leave that unstated and be something that
> happens by unspecified means. Everything I thought to say was either very
> clumsy or too limited.
Currently what we can make certain is the 3 pre-defined values. For those uncertain values, some members prefer to define a pattern to specify the custom values. This may be mainly for those non traditional office software. I also agree with this because extensibility is not a bad thing for me.
>
> PPS: There is a question on whether the attribute should be preserved where
> it is not recognized or is not being honored. It is not a foreign
> attributed but it can have a foreign value. It is technically not a foreign
> attribute down-level because it is in a standard namespace, although
> implementations are known that drop attributes that are unsupported,
> whatever the namespace. This is a meta-topic that we might want to discuss
> separately.
It is surely the case that native attribute may have a foreign value. This is an example that extensibility requires such solution. Maybe this topic will become a general topic in the whole ODF spec. Anyway, discuss it separately.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ming Fei Jia [mailto:]
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200810/msg00130.html
> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 05:40
> To:
> Subject: Re: [office] preferred view mode upon opening document
>
......
