OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  about another default value proposal

    Posted 06-23-2008 17:13

    Dear TC members,

    Just on the TC call, folks discussed the proposal "attribute default values"(http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/proposal%3Adefault-values). This proposal is about the default value presenting form, i.e. using a RNG schema or a comment in the specification. I've no strong concern about that.

    But besides the default value form in the specification, what I'm interested in are the default value contents. You know it is another proposal for default values initially proposed by Helen Yue(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200708/msg00120.html), collected data from OpenOffice,KOffice and Symphony, latest updated document by Michael(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200804/msg00092.html), which has been under discussion for a long time. Obviously, the default value inconsistency will impact the interoperability between different ODF applications, so I think we need to continue discussing this issue. Actually, this proposal already made a big progress, and Michael has summarized a comprehensive comparison document based on different application default values. But how to process these default values next seems still unclear(IMHO)now, what I understand can be:
    1)Each application representative needs to review the comparison document, check whether something is lost or incorrect;
    2)Those n/a values in the comparison document can be regarded as "consistent" with other specified values; right?
    3)Most of default values are consistent, which will be put into ODF1.2 specification; right?
    4)Make sure those non-necessary defined values(marked as yellow) are really not necessary defined;
    5)Unify the length unit for the floating values, whether using metric "cm" or "inch";
    6)Some of conflict values(marked as red) need to discuss in the mailing list or TC call, resolve the conflicts and make the consensus. I saw Michael already give the proposal values for some conflict values, and some are still blank. I've done an easy thing, that extracted the conflict values (totally 42) from the comparison document as this spreadsheet:(See attached file: ConflictDefaultValues.ods). FYR.
    7)Anything missed?

    Hope everyone have a nice day!


    Best Regards,

    Mingfei Jia(贾明飞)
    IBM Lotus Symphony Development
    IBM China Software Development LAB, Beijing
    Tel: 86-10-82452493 Fax: 86-10-82452887
    NOTES:Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM E-mail: jiamingf@cn.ibm.com
    Address: 4/F, DeShi Building No.9, East Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100085, PRC



  • 2.  Re: [office] about another default value proposal

    Posted 09-18-2008 15:31

    Dear Michael and other TC members,

    Why I raised this proposal again after so many days passed is that I often received complaints from customers/users about the ODF interoperability issues brought by the different default values of different products. For example, for the the graphic properties "fo:wrap-option", Symphony use the default value "true" when no explicit value is specified in the ODF file, but OpenOffice 3.0beta2 use "false" as the default value actually. So when the long text in Shape is displayed well in Symphony, it will be displayed wrongly in OpenOffice, and vice versa. This minor attribute will bring severe interoperability issue. We really do not hope that different conformance products can not be interoperable!

    As I know, during the history of this proposal, Michael is the actual proposal owner, who was ever responsible to collect default values from different vendors,and cost much effort to do the analysis and comparison, wrote the comparison style document(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200804/msg00092.html),etc. So, Michael, I think I and other TC members will very appreciate if you can continue to lead this proposal. I just updated your comparison style document according to Symphony input, as well as uploaded a conflict values document according to your comparison document(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/download.php/29365/ConflictDefaultValues.ods). If agenda allows, let's discuss this proposal in the next TC call. Thanks a lot.



    Ming Fei Jia---06/24/2008 01:28:01 AM---Dear TC members, Just on the TC call, folks discussed the proposal "attribute default


    From:

    Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM@IBMCN

    To:

    office@lists.oasis-open.org

    Date:

    06/24/2008 01:28 AM

    Subject:

    [office] about another default value proposal




    Dear TC members,

    Just on the TC call, folks discussed the proposal "attribute default values"(
    http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/proposal%3Adefault-values). This proposal is about the default value presenting form, i.e. using a RNG schema or a comment in the specification. I've no strong concern about that.

    But besides the default value form in the specification, what I'm interested in are the default value contents. You know it is another proposal for default values initially proposed by Helen Yue(
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200708/msg00120.html), collected data from OpenOffice,KOffice and Symphony, latest updated document by Michael(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200804/msg00092.html), which has been under discussion for a long time. Obviously, the default value inconsistency will impact the interoperability between different ODF applications, so I think we need to continue discussing this issue. Actually, this proposal already made a big progress, and Michael has summarized a comprehensive comparison document based on different application default values. But how to process these default values next seems still unclear(IMHO)now, what I understand can be:
    1)Each application representative needs to review the comparison document, check whether something is lost or incorrect;
    2)Those n/a values in the comparison document can be regarded as "consistent" with other specified values; right?
    3)Most of default values are consistent, which will be put into ODF1.2 specification; right?
    4)Make sure those non-necessary defined values(marked as yellow) are really not necessary defined;
    5)Unify the length unit for the floating values, whether using metric "cm" or "inch";
    6)Some of conflict values(marked as red) need to discuss in the mailing list or TC call, resolve the conflicts and make the consensus. I saw Michael already give the proposal values for some conflict values, and some are still blank. I've done an easy thing, that extracted the conflict values (totally 42) from the comparison document as this spreadsheet:
    (See attached file: ConflictDefaultValues.ods). FYR.
    7)Anything missed?

    Hope everyone have a nice day!


    Best Regards,

    Mingfei Jia(贾明飞)
    IBM Lotus Symphony Development
    IBM China Software Development LAB, Beijing
    Tel: 86-10-82452493 Fax: 86-10-82452887

    NOTES:Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM E-mail: jiamingf@cn.ibm.com
    Address: 4/F, DeShi Building No.9, East Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100085, PRC[attachment "ConflictDefaultValues.ods" deleted by Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
    at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 


  • 3.  Re: [office] about another default value proposal

    Posted 09-22-2008 15:05

    Hello Michael,

    Since there is no time to discuss this proposal on the just ended TC call, let's discuss it on the next TC call. Thanks.


    Best Regards,

    Mingfei Jia(贾明飞)
    IBM Lotus Symphony Development
    IBM China Software Development LAB, Beijing
    Tel: 86-10-82452493 Fax: 86-10-82452887
    NOTES:Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM E-mail: jiamingf@cn.ibm.com
    Address: 4/F, DeShi Building No.9, East Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100085, PRC

    Ming Fei Jia---09/18/2008 11:34:11 PM---Dear Michael and other TC members,


    From:

    Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM@IBMCN

    To:

    office@lists.oasis-open.org, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>

    Date:

    09/18/2008 11:34 PM

    Subject:

    Re: [office] about another default value proposal




    Dear Michael and other TC members,

    Why I raised this proposal again after so many days passed is that I often received complaints from customers/users about the ODF interoperability issues brought by the different default values of different products. For example, for the the graphic properties "fo:wrap-option", Symphony use the default value "true" when no explicit value is specified in the ODF file, but OpenOffice 3.0beta2 use "false" as the default value actually. So when the long text in Shape is displayed well in Symphony, it will be displayed wrongly in OpenOffice, and vice versa. This minor attribute will bring severe interoperability issue. We really do not hope that
    different conformance products can not be interoperable!

    As I know, during the history of this proposal, Michael is the actual proposal owner, who was ever responsible to collect default values from different vendors,and cost much effort to do the analysis and comparison, wrote the comparison style document
    (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200804/msg00092.html),etc. So, Michael, I think I and other TC members will very appreciate if you can continue to lead this proposal. I just updated your comparison style document according to Symphony input, as well as uploaded a conflict values document according to your comparison document(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/download.php/29365/ConflictDefaultValues.ods). If agenda allows, let's discuss this proposal in the next TC call. Thanks a lot.



    Ming Fei Jia---06/24/2008 01:28:01 AM---Dear TC members, Just on the TC call, folks discussed the proposal "attribute default

    From:

    Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM@IBMCN

    To:

    office@lists.oasis-open.org

    Date:

    06/24/2008 01:28 AM

    Subject:

    [office] about another default value proposal




    Dear TC members,

    Just on the TC call, folks discussed the proposal "attribute default values"(
    http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/proposal%3Adefault-values). This proposal is about the default value presenting form, i.e. using a RNG schema or a comment in the specification. I've no strong concern about that.

    But besides the default value form in the specification, what I'm interested in are the default value contents. You know it is another proposal for default values initially proposed by Helen Yue(
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200708/msg00120.html), collected data from OpenOffice,KOffice and Symphony, latest updated document by Michael(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200804/msg00092.html), which has been under discussion for a long time. Obviously, the default value inconsistency will impact the interoperability between different ODF applications, so I think we need to continue discussing this issue. Actually, this proposal already made a big progress, and Michael has summarized a comprehensive comparison document based on different application default values. But how to process these default values next seems still unclear(IMHO)now, what I understand can be:
    1)Each application representative needs to review the comparison document, check whether something is lost or incorrect;
    2)Those n/a values in the comparison document can be regarded as "consistent" with other specified values; right?
    3)Most of default values are consistent, which will be put into ODF1.2 specification; right?
    4)Make sure those non-necessary defined values(marked as yellow) are really not necessary defined;
    5)Unify the length unit for the floating values, whether using metric "cm" or "inch";
    6)Some of conflict values(marked as red) need to discuss in the mailing list or TC call, resolve the conflicts and make the consensus. I saw Michael already give the proposal values for some conflict values, and some are still blank. I've done an easy thing, that extracted the conflict values (totally 42) from the comparison document as this spreadsheet:
    (See attached file: ConflictDefaultValues.ods). FYR.
    7)Anything missed?

    Hope everyone have a nice day!


    Best Regards,

    Mingfei Jia(贾明飞)
    IBM Lotus Symphony Development
    IBM China Software Development LAB, Beijing
    Tel: 86-10-82452493 Fax: 86-10-82452887

    NOTES:Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM E-mail: jiamingf@cn.ibm.com
    Address: 4/F, DeShi Building No.9, East Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100085, PRC[attachment "ConflictDefaultValues.ods" deleted by Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
    at:

    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php