OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  Re: [office] ODF 1.2 drafts/Committee Draft Ballot

    Posted 04-20-2009 08:11 
    Hi Doug,

thanks for pointing this out. It seems no one noticed that before.

I agree that an automatic style that we reference within content.xml 
should be defined there rather than only in the styles.xml, but I don't 
think we are actually requesting this. Maybe we should? Do you have a 
suggestion what text we should add where?

So, this seems to be an issue in the category of an editorial error that 
we should correct before we send out the specification for public 
review, but nothing severe. The worst thing that can happen is that the 
specification date is displayed with a default style rather than the 
style we are defining in styles.xml. Nothing that in any way changes the 
meaning of anything in the specification.

Best regards

Michael





On 04/19/09 18:43, Doug Mahugh wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Thanks for putting together the summary, that's very helpful.
> 
> FYI, I've noticed a problem in the rev05 draft (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32057/OpenDocument-v1.2-cd01-rev05.odt) that I think needs some attention.  I believe the document uses one style in a way which isn't conformant to the spec.
> 
> The date style named N106 is defined in the office:automatic-styles section of styles.xml.  It's then referenced by the footer style named "Footer" in the office:master-styles section of styles.xml, which is fine.
> 
> The style N106 is not defined in the office:automatic-styles section of content.xml, but nonetheless it is referenced in the body of the document within content.xml.  The style N106 is applied to the date of the draft which appears on the first page of the document.  Here's the markup:
> 
>   
> 
> The root of content.xml is office:document-content, of course, and the spec has the same sentence about the content of office:document-content in both Section 2.1 (Document Roots) of ODF 1.1 and Section 2.2.3.1 (


  • 2.  RE: [office] ODF 1.2 drafts/Committee Draft Ballot

    Posted 04-20-2009 14:53 
    Hi Michael,

I think the existing text I had quoted below does state the requirement, but perhaps it could be augmented with "all" to make it more clear:

  "The


  • 3.  RE: [office] ODF 1.2 drafts/Committee Draft Ballot

    Posted 04-20-2009 15:08 
    I think this problem is more material than the assumption of a benign
fall-back behavior in the face of a non-conformant document.  It seems that
some ODF consumers are fussier about their requirement for schema and
specification conformance than others (since the problem Doug Mahugh
mentions is not a matter of foreign element/attribute treatment), and we
should not presume how they will provide graceful degradation.  

On the other hand, if the automatic-correction option Doug mentions keeps
the specification in proper form, maybe we should use the one that Word 2007
SP2 produces, once it ships.  I am assuming, of course, that there are not
new problems with other processors being able to consume that generation of
the specification document correctly (that is, turnaround back to the
processor that originally created the document file works properly and might
even avoid regeneration of the bug in further revisions.

 - Dennis 

 




    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


Related Content