OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  RE: [office] Conformance Definitions - Clarification

    Posted 02-02-2009 16:05 
    I think the term "conforming document" should honor the ODF 1.1 definition and remain consistent with ODF 1.0/1.1 and IEC 26300.

Then "strictly conforming document" can be also made normative by including the strict schema as normative and this will be an additional level of conformance but the pre-existing levels match.

The definition of conforming processor in ODF 1.0/1.1 should be preserved and strictly conforming can set a different, lower ceiling.  

These definitions can be done in a way where, apart from breaking changes, existing conformant documents and conformant processors would, with modification of the version attribute, continue to be conformant.  Strict conformance is new and more restrictive and can be as tight as you want.

Finally, the best determination of whether content should be processed, and whether a not-understood element or attribute should be preserved, is the implementation of the foreign element or attribute and the special attribute on preservation (of elements) should be provided by such implementations.

I agree with Michael's discussion about what happens when the document is altered and whether or not foreign elements that might become inconsistent are stricken.  This also applies to xml:id.  The notion of preservation and the conditions where preservation is important and the conditions under which removal is appropriate is not well-defined.

 - Dennis


  • 2.  Re: [office] Conformance Definitions - Clarification

    Posted 02-03-2009 12:57 
    On 02/02/09 17:04, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I think the term "conforming document" should honor the ODF 1.1 definition and remain consistent with ODF 1.0/1.1 and IEC 26300.
> 
> Then "strictly conforming document" can be also made normative by including the strict schema as normative and this will be an additional level of conformance but the pre-existing levels match.
> 
> The definition of conforming processor in ODF 1.0/1.1 should be preserved and strictly conforming can set a different, lower ceiling.  
> 
> These definitions can be done in a way where, apart from breaking changes, existing conformant documents and conformant processors would, with modification of the version attribute, continue to be conformant.  Strict conformance is new and more restrictive and can be as tight as you want.

One could do so, but this would only mean little if not no improvements 
compared to the situation on ODF 1.1.

> 
> Finally, the best determination of whether content should be processed, and whether a not-understood element or attribute should be preserved, is the implementation of the foreign element or attribute and the special attribute on preservation (of elements) should be provided by such implementations.

If you mean the office:process-content attribute here: This attribute 
actually makes it impossible to extend the validation to documents that 
contain foreign elements using NVDL, which appears to be a very 
reasonable goal. For this reason, this attribute has been deprecated 
even in the proposals which included a loose conformance.

Best regards

Michael

> 
> I agree with Michael's discussion about what happens when the document is altered and whether or not foreign elements that might become inconsistent are stricken.  This also applies to xml:id.  The notion of preservation and the conditions where preservation is important and the conditions under which removal is appropriate is not well-defined.
> 
>  - Dennis  
> 
> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


Related Content