OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  FW: [office] Discussion Requested - Version Identification at the Feature Level

    Posted 10-13-2008 15:48 
    I request discussion of this proposal on the next (October 20) TC Coordination Call 

If there are other things I should do beyond making the proposal in e-mail (Wiki, document storage), please let me know and I will do that also.  It is time I learned.

 - Dennis


  • 2.  Re: FW: [office] Discussion Requested - Version Identification at theFeature Level

    Posted 10-13-2008 18:37 
    I agree that this would be useful to have.   I wonder if we could do 
something like what we have in Appendix D 'Core Feature Sets' ?  In other 
words, list all of the section/subsection numbers along with what version 
ODF introduced or substantially changed that feature.

The assumption is that new features are introduced into new subsections. 
This may be a bad assumption.

-Rob

"Dennis E. Hamilton"


  • 3.  RE: FW: [office] Discussion Requested - Version Identification at the Feature Level

    Posted 10-14-2008 21:53 
    I'm thinking this over.

I agree with Michael's observation that this is non-normative information.

I find it awkward that it not be with the information in the main text in
some way, just to make sure it is maintained accurately, but I suppose one
could live with a non-normative catalog of sorts.

In terms of matching the Table-of-Contents (TOC) structure, it would be
helpful if the TOC numbered all the way down (or at least that sections were
numbered all the way down, whether the TOC goes all the way or not), so that
cross-referencing could work.  This would be for cross-reference into the
normative text, but not the reverse.  (I can't wait for a version of OO.o or
Word 2007 -- whichever one comes first -- that permit backing up through a
path of followed links.)

CONCERNS:

In the ODF 1.0/1.1 Documents, attributes are specified in conjunction with
the elements that have them.  That makes this kind of version identification
fairly easy, based off the TOC (deepened as necessary for accurate
cross-reference and identification of the relevant descriptions).

In the ODF 1.2 organization, this is more problematic because attribute
definitions are factored out so that all hononymic usages have to be
explained in a single place (and should be backlinked to the relevant
element descriptions in a more fine-grained way, potentially).  

I am not sure how well the 1.2 organization lends itself to version
tracking.  I don't want to rule that out, but I think it takes something
more in the way the homonymic usages are specified.  It is probably a
something more that we already need.

Let's keep kicking this around. 

 - Dennis 


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


Related Content