OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Dear TC members,

in the last work call I have been asked to clarify my proposal regarding 
the compatibility between OpenDocument 1.1 and 1.2. The general 
intention is that we keep the impact of a transition from OpenDocument 
1.1 to 1.2 for implementors and users as small as possible, while we at 
the same time restrict the set of enhancements we make from 1.1 to 1.2 
also as little as possible.

Based on the existing OpenDocument conformance definition, I propose 
that we use the following formal rules regarding the compatibility 
between OpenDocument v1.0 and v1.1:

Documents that conform to the the OpenDocument v1.1 specification shall 
also conform to the OpenDocument v1.2 specification. Vice versa, 
documents that conform to the OpenDocument v1.2 specification shall also 
conform to the OpenDocument v1.1 specification, if they don't use any of 
the OpenDocument v1.2 features that are not contained in OpenDocument v1.1.

Exceptions from this general rules are possible, if, and only if, this 
is considered to be of great advantage for users of the OpenDocument 
specification, and conforming implementations.


Based on OpenDocument implementations, I propose the following:

OpenDocument v1.2 implementations shall be able to process OpenDocument 
v1.1 documents without requiring additional implementations for that 
purpose. Vice versa, OpenDocument v1.1 implementations shall be able to 
process OpenDocument v1.2 documents without requiring additional 
implementations for that purpose, if the documents contains none of the 
OpenDocument v1.2 features that are not contained in OpenDocument v1.1.

Exceptions from this general rules are possible, if, and only if, this 
is considered to be of great advantage for users of the OpenDocument 
specification, and conforming implementations.

 From the proposals we have for OpenDocument v1.2 right now, I believe 
that the formulas are a feature that requires and justifies an 
exception. For other proposal I think we should tend to except them if 
they do not require an exception from the above general rules, and we 
should carefully weight the pros and cons for those that require an 
exception.


Best regards

Michael

I'm trying to work out how this might impact Accessibility.

E.g. Rich and his (non) tables. Would we be able to get
that through with this rule in place?

I'm wary of this proposal.

regards DaveP

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Brauer 

Dave Pawson wrote:
> I'm trying to work out how this might impact Accessibility.
> 
> E.g. Rich and his (non) tables. Would we be able to get
> that through with this rule in place?

Why not? Regardless whether it is a new feature or not, a schema for 
tables in presentations in my point of view is of great advantage for 
ODF users. Therefore, we should add it.

Michael

> 
> I'm wary of this proposal.
> 
> regards DaveP
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Brauer 

On 27/10/06, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg

Dave,

Dave Pawson wrote:
> On 27/10/06, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> 

On 27/10/06, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg


> > I don't think there is any information in the xml to say which schema it
> > is valid to (Or I couldn't find any). I think this is needed for xml
> > processing.
>
> There actually is the version attribute described in section 2.1.2.



I.e. it is optional.


> You need it if you want to validate documents against the schema of a
> specific version, that's true. You should not need it most other cases.

I beg to differ on that. Any xml processing will need to know what
elements attributes to expect.




> >
> > If it is added, will your proposal still be valid?
>
> Yes, it will. But maybe there is some misunderstanding. My proposal is
> not a proposal for defining conformance in OpenDocument v1.2 itself. But
> it is a proposal for guidelines which extensions we should accept for
> ODF 1.2, and which require a deeper discussion before we know whether we
> accept them for ODF 1.2.

The proposal could create a lot of confusion.
When I open a document I will be unable to tell if it is 1.1 or 1.2
(unless the implementation decides to include the version).

How do I request a feature please?
That this attribute become required from 1.2 onwards.

regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Dave Pawson wrote:
> On 27/10/06, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> 
> 
>> > I don't think there is any information in the xml to say which 
>> schema it
>> > is valid to (Or I couldn't find any). I think this is needed for xml
>> > processing.
>>
>> There actually is the version attribute described in section 2.1.2.
> 
> 
> 
> I.e. it is optional.

Yes. That's correct.
> 
> 
>> You need it if you want to validate documents against the schema of a
>> specific version, that's true. You should not need it most other cases.
> 
> I beg to differ on that. Any xml processing will need to know what
> elements attributes to expect.

I disagree. An ODF 1.1 implementation for instance does not need to know 
whether it processes and ODF 1.1 or an ODF 1.0 document, because the 
only difference between the two is that an ODF 1.1 document may contain 
some elements and attributes that do not exist in ODF 1.0. Or have I 
overseen something?

> 
> 
> 
> 
>> >
>> > If it is added, will your proposal still be valid?
>>
>> Yes, it will. But maybe there is some misunderstanding. My proposal is
>> not a proposal for defining conformance in OpenDocument v1.2 itself. But
>> it is a proposal for guidelines which extensions we should accept for
>> ODF 1.2, and which require a deeper discussion before we know whether we
>> accept them for ODF 1.2.
> 
> The proposal could create a lot of confusion.

I don't think my proposal can create confusion. What may create 
confusion is that documents may not contain a version number. But that's 
not related to my proposal.

> When I open a document I will be unable to tell if it is 1.1 or 1.2
> (unless the implementation decides to include the version).
> 
> How do I request a feature please?

You request it at the TC's mailing list, or by joining a TC call.

Best regards.

Michael