OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  Re: [office] Status of list discussions/Suggestion how toproceed

    Posted 03-26-2007 12:42 
    Hi Thomas,

> Creating such a list should just be to write down the thoughts already formed in the past  months. And can't take much
time.

I took Michaels use-cases very seriously. Especially: "(M1.6) it should 'borrow' from similar, existing standards
wherever possible and permitted.".

So I started to investigate existing standards:
a) CSS (e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/generate.html#counters)
b) OfficeOpenXML (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC45.htm)
c) XSL-FO http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/
d) DocBook (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=docbook)

I found a) especially interresting. Suprisingly neither my nor your proposal fits into this view. So up till now I have
no qualified answer on e.g. M1.6.

I'm not even sure whether my list of related standards is complete.

So no --- I'm sorry, but I  can't meet this deadline if we take M1.6 and the others seriously.

Another sample is "(M1.4) it must be friendly to transformations using XSLT or similar XML-based languages or tools,".
So how do you transform between numbered-lists and text:lists using XSL(T). Is this friendly. No idea -- yet :-)

I know that your analysis is :


Mine will take a little bit longer. Sorry.

~Florian


>>> Thomas Zander


  • 2.  Re: [office] Status of list discussions/Suggestion how to proceed

    Posted 03-26-2007 13:05 
    Hi Florian, all,

Florian Reuter wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
>> Creating such a list should just be to write down the thoughts already formed in the past  months. And can't take much
> time.
> 
> I took Michaels use-cases very seriously. Especially: "(M1.6) it should 'borrow' from similar, existing standards
> wherever possible and permitted.".
> 
> So I started to investigate existing standards:
> a) CSS (e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/generate.html#counters)
> b) OfficeOpenXML (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC45.htm)
> c) XSL-FO http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/
> d) DocBook (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=docbook)
> 
> I found a) especially interresting. Suprisingly neither my nor your proposal fits into this view. So up till now I have
> no qualified answer on e.g. M1.6.
> 
> I'm not even sure whether my list of related standards is complete.

You did overlook HTML. I think I've mentioned that already: Lists in ODF 
1.1 are based on HTML.

> 
> So no --- I'm sorry, but I  can't meet this deadline if we take M1.6 and the others seriously.
> 
> Another sample is "(M1.4) it must be friendly to transformations using XSLT or similar XML-based languages or tools,".
> So how do you transform between numbered-lists and text:lists using XSL(T). Is this friendly. No idea -- yet :-)

Well, the idea behind this requirement was that ODF should be 
processable by XSLT, for instance, by not encoding information into 
string data, since that is difficult to parse by XSLT. I don't think 
that the intention was to require that an ODF document could be 
transformed from one representation into an equivalent one using XSLT.

I hope this helps.

Michael


-- 
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: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering


  • 3.  Re: [office] Status of list discussions/Suggestion how to proceed

    Posted 03-26-2007 13:09 
    On Monday 26 March 2007 14:41, you wrote:
> > Creating such a list should just be to write down the thoughts already
> > formed in the past  months. And can't take much
> > time.
[snip]
> So no --- I'm sorry, but I  can't meet this deadline if we take M1.6 and
> the others seriously.

You misread, this is not about the requirements; this is about *your* 
objections to the proposal Oliver posted. And *your* reasons for continuing 
to object to it.
Frankly; after 4 weeks, I want specifics on why you object.

Read the mail you replied to again for specifics.
-- 
Thomas Zander


Related Content