OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Hi all,

While discussing [1] how to add comments to slides on the KOffice mailing list, 
we noted an extension to ODF used by OpenOffice 3.2. The namespace 

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.



Jos van den Oever ---07/15/2010 04:01:31 PM---Hi all,






From:


Jos van den Oever <jos@vandenoever.info>



To:


office@lists.oasis-open.org



Date:


07/15/2010 04:01 PM



Subject:


[office] OpenOffice extensions to ODF





Hi all,


While discussing [1] how to add comments to slides on the KOffice mailing list,

we noted an extension to ODF used by OpenOffice 3.2. The namespace

<http://openoffice.org/2009/office> is used to store slide comments in OpenOffice.


I was wondering if this namespace is being used as a staging area from where

missing features in ODF can be pushed to the standard and if there is

documentation on this namespace somewhere.


The particular feature could be easily added to ODF by allowing

<office:annotation> in <draw:page>.


   <office:presentation>

      <draw:page draw:name="page1" draw:style-name="dp1" draw:master-page-

name="Default">

        <presentation:notes draw:style-name="dp2">

        </presentation:notes>

        <officeooo:annotation svg:x="1.216cm" svg:y="1.566cm">

          <dc:date>2010-07-15T07:16:50</dc:date>

          <text:p>Hello this is a comment.</text:p>

        </officeooo:annotation>

      </draw:page>

  </office:presentation>


The element <officeooo:annotation> seems to have an identical definition to

<office:annotation>


Cheers,

Jos


[1] http://lists.kde.org/?l=koffice-devel&m=127913395416266


---------------------------------------------------------------------

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 

On Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:42:51 am Ming Fei Jia wrote:
> I also think 

>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.

http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3022 :-)

Bart

On Thursday 15 July 2010 13:42:14 Hanssens Bart wrote:
> >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.
> 
> http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3022 :-)
> 
Does this mean that allowing office:annotation will be considered to get fixed 
for ODF 1.2?

Thorsten Zachmann

Thorsten Zachmann 

On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 14:39 -0600, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Thorsten Zachmann 

>> In any case, I'll likely vote against adding new features at this point
>> unless there is something of extraordinary importance.
>
>Of course there is an argument to be made that this isn't a proposal to
>add a feature but to correct an omission. office:annotation already
>exists it is currently just not allowed in the suggested place, although
>surely some TC members believed that office:annotation can occur in any
>content.

While I do agree with Rob about not adding features lightly, I do think that an

On Thursday 15 July 2010 23:35:28 Hanssens Bart wrote:
> >> In any case, I'll likely vote against adding new features at this point
> >> unless there is something of extraordinary importance.
> >
> >Of course there is an argument to be made that this isn't a proposal to
> >add a feature but to correct an omission. office:annotation already
> >exists it is currently just not allowed in the suggested place, although
> >surely some TC members believed that office:annotation can occur in any
> >content.
> 
> While I do agree with Rob about not adding features lightly, I do think
> that an 

"Andreas J. Guelzow" 

There is no such policy.  

It may be that the OO.o team has such foreign elements and attributes in
mind for eventual proposal to the ODF TC.  As far as I know, no such
proposals have been made.  

It is my understanding that anyone can make a proposal at any time.  In my
opinion, for something such as the annotation case you encountered, it would
seem reasonable for straightforward, easily introduced provisions to be
defined in JIRA concurrent with the ongoing Public Review.  

For something more elaborate, a specific proposal would need to be
introduced and the ODF TC would deliberate on its consideration and also
when it would be developed to specification level and introduced into ODF in
an acceptable form.  The tendency is to defer substantial new provisions to
ODF-next requirements, but I don't believe there is a formally-adopted
policy to that effect.  In fact, there is a significant addition to
provisions for encryption of whole packages that may be under consideration
for addition to ODF 1.2 Part 3.

 - Dennis



                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
From: Jos van den Oever [mailto:jos@vandenoever.info] 
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 04:07
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] OpenOffice extensions to ODF

[ ... ]

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 

Dear TC members,

sorry for the late response.

Yes, OpenOffice.org did implement the enhancement to apply annotations 
directly to OpenOffice.org Impress pages.

At the time we (Sun's/Oracle's OpenOffice.org developer team) 
implemented this enhancement we decided to hold back the corresponding 
enhancement proposal to the OASIS ODF TC for the ODF specification in 
order to not disturb the OASIS ODF TC's work to finish ODF 1.2 by just 
another proposal.
Our plan was and is to propose this enhancement for the next version of 
ODF when ODF 1.2 is out.


Best regards, Oliver.



On 07/15/10 10:00, Jos van den Oever wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While discussing [1] how to add comments to slides on the KOffice mailing list,
> we noted an extension to ODF used by OpenOffice 3.2. The namespace
>