On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 11:06 +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Friday 13. February 2009 09:16:22 ext Michael Brauer - Sun Germany -
> ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
> > "A conforming consumer *shall* display a documents that contains a
> > particular element or attribute not defined by this specification, as it
> > would if the element or attribute would not be present."
>
> In principle I would be fine with this.
>
> The wording needs some work as this might have one problem for non-complete
> implementations (consumers).
> Imagine a property (drop caps for instance) that is not supported by an
> implementation, per my reading it would fail the above clause because it
> misses a feature. So its unwanted collateral damage.
>
> But I have no problem with saying the namespaced odf-extensions should not be
> meant to change the rendering of the object in strict docs.
>
I don't think that "shall" is appropriate. A consumer should be allowed
to indicate that there is an known tag, especially if we expect the
consumer to retain that tag. Otherwise we may be forcing consumers to
hide information from the user.
Andreas
--
Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD, FTICA
Coordinator, Mathematical & Computing Sciences
Concordia University College of Alberta
