Wonderful,
You've found another place where QName prefixes are used in attributes as a
form of extension. (The famous one is table:formula of course, the elephant
under the carpet is scripts.) Good, there's a conversation over on ODF 1.2
about figuring out what to do about any or all of these under a desire for a
"pure" conformance level.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Hanssens Bart [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 06:41
To:
Subject: [oic] form interoperability
Mm, I'm trying to come up with a test document for forms, but I stumbled
upon this:
* ODF 1.1, 11.4.2 Control Implementation
A control may be given a control type attribute, which determines which
concrete rendition or implementation the user agent should instantiate.
For easy extensibility, the value of this attribute is a namespaced
token,
i.e., it is token using a namespace prefix, much like attributes in XML.
So the form:control-implementation would be like a hint, not required to
get the field rendered in a reassuring dull way, right ?
If so, shouldn't this be in the application-specific settings.xml
instead of being sprinkled out over the form ? In settings.xml, you
could then define something like "render all textarea's using a really
spiffy control"
Best regards,
Bart
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
