The XML specification makes it clear that variations are relevant to the
application of XML that is in hand. There is nothing wrong with simply
saying all of XML is tolerated, but one probably needs to say so explicitly.
For example, is handling of encodings other than UTF8 and UTF16 (with
however byte-order is handled in that case) required to be supported and
which is part of strict conformance and which is not? That impacts what can
be said in IRIs, for example, and how they have to be encoded to pass
through the particular character-set encoding.
The key is whether the XML specifications areas of mandatory, optionality,
and variability have been explicitly considered and whether there are
qualifications in the specific case of the XML in the structure of ODF
documents. It is always a concern whether that is not explicitly accounted
for in a derivative use, because it is not clear what might simply be an
oversight.
This might seem fussy, but it is valuable to be explicit and to avoid the
risk of unintended consequences for both conformance and interoperability.
Being specific about the specification version that is relied on as a
normative reference matters too. For example, the current edition of XML
1.0 has a much broader definition of the characters usable in Name and
NCName values. It might be a surprise in the implementation of ODF
1.0/1.1/1.2 to find that these are now legitimate. (This has to do with a
breaking changed in creation of the current edition, a change that has been
forced through xml:id by reference too.)
- Dennis
Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 05:05
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: robert_weir@us.ibm.com; office@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Bart Hanssens'
Subject: Re: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Floor << Ceiling
Already
On 01/20/09 00:46, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I forgot something, if I want to make an application/xml document (and
> whether this is required and what else is permitted, like a
> is a bit vague in the ODF specifications, since the XML specification
allows
> both and requires neither):
If the XML specification allows both and requires neither, you can use
neither or both. Why should the ODF specification be more specific than
the XML specification? What problem would that solve? Or, what is the
issue with not being more restrictive than XML itself?
Michael
>
> - - - - - - -
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - - - - - - -
>
>
Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 15:19
> To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
> Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org; Bart Hanssens
> Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Floor <<
Ceiling
> Already
>
> [ ... ]
>
> The following example is ridiculous (and Bart Hanssens will raise his
> eyebrows), but it points out the most (or least, depending on perspective)
> that any ODF processor has to deal with. Acceptance of all sorts of
> additional content must be acceptable, but support for it at the
processing
> or semantic level is not. This is a far bigger deal for interoperability
> than whether or not foreign elements are allowed, with or without some
> proviso that the reduction to a conformant document be benign. Keeping in
> mind that the world is a mostly-practical, often-realistic, place, and no
> one could get a way with this, here is all that the letter of the ODF law
> requires.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
--
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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