On Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:42:51 am Ming Fei Jia wrote:
> I also think <officeooo:annotation> should have an identical definition to
> <office:annotation>, so why not change <officeooo:annotation> to the
> standardized <office:annotation>. I assume you have the same question.
>
> But what I am confusing now is that <office:annotation> in ODF 1.2 is
> usable with the following elements: <table:covered-table-cell> 9.1.5,
> <table:table-cell> 9.1.4, <text:a> 6.1.8, <text:h> 5.1.2, <text:meta>
> 6.1.9, <text:meta-field> 7.5.19, <text:p> 5.1.3, <text:ruby-base> 6.4.2
> and <text:span> 6.1.7. I use ODF1.2 CD5. And your example shows it is a
> child element of <draw:page>. So either the ODF 1.2 spec has error or
> your <officeooo:annotation> is not a reference implementation of
> <office:annotation>. I guess maybe ODF1.2 spec miss something.
Yes, the example is only valid ODF because the annotation is in a different
namespace (officeooo). I suggest that office:annotation is allowed in draw:page
after presentation:notes. Perhaps someone can add it to JIRA, since i have
account there yet.
My more general question is: what is the policy wrt officeooo and is there a
policy to move things that are in there to ODF.
Cheers,
Jos
