OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  Re: [office] The proposal:auto-play presentation file format has beenupdated by the New Proposal Form

    Posted 07-04-2008 10:57

    Warren,

    Sorry to be late response. I'm very busy in other work during these days.

    Actually, I have no strong concern about the preferred view name, though I have a little feeling that "presentation" before "slide-show" seems extraneous. Besides the previous reason, another reason for my feeling is that I feel "slide-show" itself seems only applied to presentation, so there is no necessary to emphasize "presentation" again in the name.

    If you still have strong concern about this, I suggest let's wait for another few days again, if no other members objection, I'll accept your suggested name "presentation-slide-show". I say so because this is an open community, everyone has right to accept or object any proposal.

    But you know another thing that we need to consider about this proposal is the customized view mode name, how to define schema for that(like x-name or)? Anyone can help? On the other hand, for this problem, we can think about it from another perspective. That is, do we really need to define the customized view mode now, even we are unclear about what the future mode is? Why not put it aside now, and when some preferred view mode appears in the future, we add the definitive mode name again?


    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

    "Warren Turkal" ---06/18/2008 12:35:42 AM---My point on the call yesterday was that the presentation-slide-show


    From:

    "Warren Turkal" <turkal@google.com>

    To:

    Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM@IBMCN

    Date:

    06/18/2008 12:35 AM

    Subject:

    Re: [office] The proposal:auto-play presentation file format has been updated by the New Proposal Form




    My point on the call yesterday was that the presentation-slide-show
    value isn't to identify the type of document in the manifest. It is to
    let the implementers of the standard know that this value can only be
    applied to a presentation document. I don't see it as a problem that
    the word presentation appears two times in the manifest:file-entry.

    wt

    On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Ming Fei Jia <jiamingf@cn.ibm.com> wrote:
    > <manifest:file-entry> already has an attribute "manifest:media-type" specify
    > the application/document type. So with the preferred view mode, an example
    > would be like:
    > <manifest:file-entry
    > manifest:media-type="application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.presentation"
    > manifest:full-path="/" manifest:preferred-view-mode="slide-show" />
    >
    > If we define the view mode name is "presentation-slide-show", the example
    > will be like:
    > <manifest:file-entry
    > manifest:media-type="application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.presentation"
    > manifest:full-path="/"
    > manifest:preferred-view-mode="presentation-slide-show"/>.
    > The prefix "presentation" of the view mode name is a little extraneous
    > because the "slide-show" apparently is one of presentation attributes in
    > this case.
    >
    > As to other customized values, the situation should be similar.
    >
    >
    > "Warren Turkal" ---2008-06-14 02:22:51---I still think that "slide-show"
    > should be "presentation-slide-show" so
    >
    >
    > From:
    > "Warren Turkal" <turkal@google.com>
    > To:
    > Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM@IBMCN
    > Cc:
    > office@lists.oasis-open.org
    > Date:
    > 2008-06-14 02:22
    > Subject:
    > Re: [office] The proposal:auto-play presentation file format has been
    > updated by the New Proposal Form
    > ________________________________
    >
    >
    > I still think that "slide-show" should be "presentation-slide-show" so
    > that it's obvious that it doesn't apply to the other document types.
    > We should also allow other values so that applications can define ones
    > that may be useful to them (e.g. x-wordprocessor-ebook, etc.). We
    > should also specify a naming convention for unofficial values (e.g.
    > x-<name>). Pending those two changes, I am in favor of the extended
    > option.
    >
    > wt
    >
    > On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 5:45 AM, Ming Fei Jia <jiamingf@cn.ibm.com> wrote:
    >> Greetings! This proposal has been updated by the New Proposal Form, also
    >> contains the link to the .odt format document.
    >>
    >> You can retrieve the update under "proposals under disussion" via
    >>
    http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument_v1.2_Action_Items.
    >>
    >> P.S, per previous TC discussion as well as by double-check the behaviors
    >> of
    >> MS Office and OO3.0, I changed the "play" view mode name to "slide-show"
    >> since "play" might cause confusion with the "play" in animation.
    >>
    >> Sincerely,
    >> _________________________________________________________
    >> Mingfei Jia
    >> Symphony Common Apps and Performance | jiamingf@cn.ibm.com
    >> IBM Corporation | Lotus Software
    >> 8610-8245-2493 (phone) | 915-2493 (tie-line)
    >>
    >>
    >> IBM Lotus Symphony
    >>
    >>
    >
    >



  • 2.  Re: [office] The proposal:auto-play presentation file format has been updated by the New Proposal Form

    Posted 07-08-2008 01:26
    I was on vacation. Sorry for the late reply.
    
    I apologize for the shortness of the reply. I don't have much time.
    
    wt
    
    2008/7/4 Ming Fei Jia 


  • 3.  Re: [office] The proposal:auto-play presentation file format has beenupdated by the New Proposal Form

    Posted 07-08-2008 17:02

    "Warren Turkal" ---07/08/2008 09:40:03 AM---I was on vacation. Sorry for the late reply.


    From:

    "Warren Turkal" <turkal@google.com>

    To:

    Ming Fei Jia/China/IBM@IBMCN

    Cc:

    office@lists.oasis-open.org

    Date:

    07/08/2008 09:40 AM

    Subject:

    Re: [office] The proposal:auto-play presentation file format has been updated by the New Proposal Form




    >I was on vacation. Sorry for the late reply.

    >I apologize for the shortness of the reply. I don't have much time.

    >wt

    2008/7/4 Ming Fei Jia <jiamingf@cn.ibm.com>:
    > Warren,
    >
    > Sorry to be late response. I'm very busy in other work during these days.
    >
    > Actually, I have no strong concern about the preferred view name, though I
    > have a little feeling that "presentation" before "slide-show" seems
    > extraneous. Besides the previous reason, another reason for my feeling is
    > that I feel "slide-show" itself seems only applied to presentation, so there
    > is no necessary to emphasize "presentation" again in the name.
    >
    > If you still have strong concern about this, I suggest let's wait for
    > another few days again, if no other members objection, I'll accept your
    > suggested name "presentation-slide-show". I say so because this is an open
    > community, everyone has right to accept or object any proposal.

    >I still feel strongly that presentation- belongs in front since the
    >mode only applies to presentations. I thought that Michael concurred
    >on the last call where we discussed it.
    Michael, really?


    > But you know another thing that we need to consider about this proposal is
    > the customized view mode name, how to define schema for that(like x-name
    > or)? Anyone can help? On the other hand, for this problem, we can think
    > about it from another perspective. That is, do we really need to define the
    > customized view mode now, even we are unclear about what the future mode is?
    > Why not put it aside now, and when some preferred view mode appears in the
    > future, we add the definitive mode name again?

    >We need to define how custom views are named so that we don't get into
    >a situation where an official one could clash with an unofficial one.

    Sorry, I'm unclear what the official one is and what the unofficial one is in this case. My original question is whether it is necessary to define the customized, unclear view mode now. I mean maybe a better way is that we just keep the current 3 definitive values, do not define the customized view mode since the x values still are unclear now. Standard should specify those definitive things. That let users customize their own preferred view mode in the future should be implementation specific unless the preferred view mode is defined in the standard.