Hi Dennis,
On 01/20/09 18:24, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Thanks for this summary.
>
> The language I would like to see retained, even if there is no
> loosely-conforming category, is a definition of foreign elements with the
> agreed rules on how they MAY be accepted, and what SHOULD be done when they
> are accepted and not understood by a conformant processor.
Sorry, but which language in the ODF 1.1 spec are you referring to?
Which statement in the current proposals is unclear in this regard?
>
> In addition, I would like to see a clause that suggests that conformant
> processors SHOULD treat those conformant-document elements and attributes
> that are not supported by a conformant implementation as foreign. (At the
> moment, we simply say nothing about this case.)
What we say is "(P1.3) It [a conforming consumer] shall be able to parse
any conforming OpenDocument documents, but it need not interpret the
semantics of all elements, attributes and attribute values."
What is missing?
>
> I have no problem with there being a single schema that is the same as what
> the strict schema is intended to accomplish. I think that is a good idea.
> It would be much cleaner and understandable.
Best regards
Michael
>
> - Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 07:09
> To: OpenDocument Mailing List
> Subject: [office] Regarding Conformance Clauses
>
> [ ... ]
>
> 1. The only extension point that ODF 1.1 has that is effected by my
> conformance clause proposals are foreign elements and attributes, that
> is, elements and attributes that are not defined by the ODF
> specification, and that may be mixed with ODF elements. Other extension
> points are not covered by the proposal.
>
> 2. Both proposals define a conforming document as one that does not
> contain any foreign elements and attributes. Both proposal require that
> a conforming ODF producer is able to produce conforming documents, and
> both proposals say that a conforming consumer should able to parse
> documents that contain foreign elements (The last should could be turned
> into a shall if this is the concern). So, the only (intended)
> differences between the two proposals are that in the first one, a
> document that contains foreign elements or attributes may be called a
> "loosely conforming ODF document", and that a conforming producer may
> create loosely conforming document in addition to conforming ones.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> 3. ODF 1.1 defines two schemas, a strict schema and a non-strict schema.
> The difference between the two schemas is that the non-strict schema
> allows arbitrary elements and attributes within <office:meta> and the
> <style:*-properties> elements, while the strict schema does not. This
> means that an ODF 1.1 document that validates against the strict schema
> does not contain any foreign elements, while one that does validate
> against the non-strict schema may contain foreign elements within
> <office:meta> and the <style:*-properties> elements. Since ODF 1.1
> allows foreign elements and attributes anywhere, the non-strict schema
> actually would not have been required. To make things simpler, I would
> suggest that we define a single schema for ODF 1.2.
>
> [ ... ]
>
--
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
