Patrick,
On 01/19/09 19:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Rob,
>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> I do puzzle and hesitate over the second one. If I create an
>>> application
>>
>>
>>> that does everything required of it by ODF 1.2 and at the same time
>>> allows a user photo editing capabilities for images that are then
>>> stored
>>
>>
>>> in a conforming ODF 1.2 document. That is the resulting file is fully
>>> ODF 1.2 conformant. So, in what way is my application not conforming
>>> to ODF 1.2?
>>>
>>> Or to put it another way, doesn't the greater include the lesser?
>>>
>>> Or is there some other issue that I am overlooking?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> With the proposed conformance clause, the application would be
>> conformant, or at least that is my reading. A consumer or producer is
>> conformant based on its _ability_ to consume or produce conformant
>> ODF. But it is not required to be exclusively capable of only that
>> task. All we can speak to is the ODF Producer -> ODF Document -> ODF
>> Consumer relationship, without denying that there may be other
>> concurrent relationships. And within that relationship, the medium of
>> exchange (the ODF Document) is distinguished from the endpoints of the
>> exchange. If we were exchanging ODF Producers among different parties
>> and expected ODF Producers to be substitutable and interoperable, then
>> we might limit their extensions as well. But going in that direction
>> is beyond what this TC has previously discussed and I am not pushing
>> for it. But constraining the properties of the exchanged document
>> itself, where users do expect interoperability, that is something a
>> bit more achievable.
>>
> OK, with that understanding, then I lean more towards the alternative
> that takes out "loosely conforming," assuming that we don't run into
> other issues as we try to do so.
Rob's reading is correct. In addition to an ODF 1.2 document a
conforming application may consume and produce any other document
format, including format that are ODF 1.2 + extension. ODF 1.2 documents
that contain extensions, or document saved in other formats, must only
not called "ODF" documents.
So, the only difference between the two proposals is that in the one
proposal, an ODF document that contains elements and attributes that are
not defined by the ODF schema may be called a "loosely conforming ODF
document", while it in the other proposal must not be called an "ODF
document".
Best regards
Michael
>
> Constraining documents that we define for interchange seems like
> reachable ground to me.
>
> Hope you are having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
--
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
