wrote:
> However, I could give you equally plausible extension attributes which
> would require entirely different processing, and in fact would lead to
> horribly corrupted documents if the same processing rules were
> indiscriminately applied.
Indeed. But even if ODF will use the simplest policy that application
should strip unknown extension elements/attributes this problem will be
eliminated.
> Has anyone done this work already? I'm surprised there is not a
> well-known standard for expressing such editing semantics. I think most
> of my concerns would be answered if we had a standard vocabulary for
> indicating for extensions things like volatile="true",
> preserveOnCopy="false", etc.
I think that this task is very complex and AFAIK the completely general
solution leads to NP-complete problem. Probably nothing what anyone
would like to implement in his office application.
Of course, the most typical cases could be handled by rules you propose.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jirka Kosek e-mail: http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional XML consulting and training services
DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------
