Hi David,
On 09.02.09 12:03, David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 09 February 2009, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> wouldn't it be an option to store the formatting properties in question
>> as application settings? This would clearly identify them as being
>> application specific. You may use the name of the style in the settings
>> to identify the style to which them belong. And to identify a frame, you
>> can use either its name, or its xml:id.
>
> OK, why not.
>
> I'd like to note that any of the "harmful" extensions people have thought of,
> and are trying to prevent, can also be done this way ;-)
>
Well, this is true. Actually, we cannot prevent that applications use
particular features in unintended and 'harmful' ways. The difference is
however that we do not make any statement what the intended use of
foreign elements and attributes are. One can used them for any purpose,
and everything would be permitted.
Regarding the <*-properties> elements: The reasons the current proposal
does not allow them within the "stricter" conformance class has
different reasons than dis-allowing them anywhere else: First, I think
that application settings actually are more suitable to keep application
specific formatting properties. And second: ODF 1.1 did already differ
between documents that allow any content in formatting properties and
those that do not by providing two schemas. Keeping this separation
would result in three conformance classes, and two schemas, which would
make the overall situation even more complex. The non-strict schemas as
it is further has the issue that is does not validate anything within
<*-properties> elements, not even the attributes that ODF defines itself.
So, dis-allowing foreign attributes and elements in <*-properties>
elements is actually an attempt to improve validation and make make
things less complex.
Having that said: If it would turn out that application settings are not
sufficient to cover the past possibilities of foreign attributes and
elements in <*-properties>, then I would have no objections to define an
extension mechanism there. But I would do so as feature of
<*-properties> elements, rather than as part of a "loose" conformance
definition.
Best regards
Michael
--
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
