atom feed38 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.officeRE: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Con...
FromSent OnAttachments
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 8:44 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 19, 2009 9:16 am 
Patrick DurusauJan 19, 2009 10:05 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 10:10 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 19, 2009 10:31 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 10:44 am 
Patrick DurusauJan 19, 2009 10:57 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 19, 2009 11:09 am 
David FaureJan 19, 2009 11:10 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 19, 2009 12:52 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 1:29 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 1:29 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 3:18 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 19, 2009 3:46 pm 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 19, 2009 11:44 pm 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 19, 2009 11:54 pm 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 20, 2009 1:31 am 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 20, 2009 5:05 am 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 20, 2009 5:32 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 20, 2009 5:58 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 20, 2009 8:42 am 
David FaureJan 20, 2009 10:02 am 
Duane NickullJan 20, 2009 10:30 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 20, 2009 10:51 am 
David FaureJan 20, 2009 11:59 am 
robe...@us.ibm.comJan 20, 2009 12:41 pm 
David FaureJan 20, 2009 5:04 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 20, 2009 9:39 pm 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 21, 2009 12:09 am 
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - HamburgJan 21, 2009 12:56 am 
Duane NickullJan 21, 2009 9:26 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonJan 21, 2009 11:04 am 
Duane NickullJan 21, 2009 11:31 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonFeb 3, 2009 3:23 pm 
robe...@us.ibm.comFeb 3, 2009 4:48 pm 
Dennis E. HamiltonFeb 3, 2009 8:45 pm 
robe...@us.ibm.comFeb 4, 2009 11:24 am 
Dennis E. HamiltonFeb 4, 2009 12:06 pm 
Subject:RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Law of Unintended Consequences
From:robe...@us.ibm.com (robe@us.ibm.com)
Date:Jan 19, 2009 11:09:39 am
List:org.oasis-open.lists.office

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <denn@acm.org> wrote on 01/19/2009 01:10:56 PM:

Thanks Rob,

With regard to current allowances of implementation-defined features, the choice of schema matters. The "strict" schema actually removes some areas where implementation-defined extensions were explicit in the schema itself. (And, for a different example, I assert that it is a feature, not a limitation, to have omission of table:protection-key-digest-algorithm mean that the hash function that produces the table:protection-key is implementation defined [and also upward-compatible from 1.1 as well].)

Agreed. We need to know what the schema would look like from this change. Are we removing all foreign attributes and elements, or keeping the specifically enumerated ones but eliminating the boundless case? I don't think Michael's written proposal addressed that question specifically.

-Rob