|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 19, 2009 8:44 am|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Jan 19, 2009 9:16 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Jan 19, 2009 10:05 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 19, 2009 10:10 am|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Jan 19, 2009 10:31 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 19, 2009 10:44 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Jan 19, 2009 10:57 am|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Jan 19, 2009 11:09 am|
|David Faure||Jan 19, 2009 11:10 am|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Jan 19, 2009 12:52 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 19, 2009 1:29 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 19, 2009 1:29 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 19, 2009 3:18 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 19, 2009 3:46 pm|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jan 19, 2009 11:44 pm|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jan 19, 2009 11:54 pm|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jan 20, 2009 1:31 am|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jan 20, 2009 5:05 am|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jan 20, 2009 5:32 am|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Jan 20, 2009 5:58 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 20, 2009 8:42 am|
|David Faure||Jan 20, 2009 10:02 am|
|Duane Nickull||Jan 20, 2009 10:30 am|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Jan 20, 2009 10:51 am|
|David Faure||Jan 20, 2009 11:59 am|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Jan 20, 2009 12:41 pm|
|David Faure||Jan 20, 2009 5:04 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 20, 2009 9:39 pm|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jan 21, 2009 12:09 am|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jan 21, 2009 12:56 am|
|Duane Nickull||Jan 21, 2009 9:26 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Jan 21, 2009 11:04 am|
|Duane Nickull||Jan 21, 2009 11:31 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Feb 3, 2009 3:23 pm|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Feb 3, 2009 4:48 pm|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Feb 3, 2009 8:45 pm|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Feb 4, 2009 11:24 am|
|Dennis E. Hamilton||Feb 4, 2009 12:06 pm|
|Subject:||RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Floor << Ceiling Already|
|From:||Dennis E. Hamilton (denn...@acm.org)|
|Date:||Jan 19, 2009 3:18:46 pm|
I recalled the floor=ceiling debate as the kind of thing that has plagued standards bodies from olden times, yet I completely misremembered the dimensions of the debate. I noticed that as I was sending off the note about MIMETYPES and how <office:body> needs to align.
It happens that the floor for ODF is far below what must be accepted from a (strictly-)compliant document. That is because the requirement for processing does not insist on any minimum feature set whatsoever (ODF 1.0/1.1 non-normative Appendix D presents that as an feature from the perspective of the founding fathers).
The following example is ridiculous (and Bart Hanssens will raise his eyebrows), but it points out the most (or least, depending on perspective) that any ODF processor has to deal with. Acceptance of all sorts of additional content must be acceptable, but support for it at the processing or semantic level is not. This is a far bigger deal for interoperability than whether or not foreign elements are allowed, with or without some proviso that the reduction to a conformant document be benign. Keeping in mind that the world is a mostly-practical, often-realistic, place, and no one could get a way with this, here is all that the letter of the ODF law requires.
I chose 1.0/1.1 because those specifications are already definite about this and I wanted to use the minimal number of required attributes. Don't blink or you'll miss it:
- - - - - - -
<!-- Minimum Required ODF 1.0/1.1 Text Document There is one for each of the main document types. There is a package equivalent that has the same office:body in an office:document- content element in content.xml and has the MIMETYPE in the special first-item of the package. For a text template, just change the mimetype. -->
<o:document xmlns:o="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:office:1.0" o:mimetype="application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text" > <o:body> <o:text /> </o:body> <!-- Singing: I ain't got no body, no body have I ... --> </o:document>
- - - - - - -
[It is just like me to have more commentary than code, as I'm sure is no surprise.]
I grant that, as far as a grammar for markup goes, allowing these cases is very convenient for definition. It is also useful to do incremental, test-driven development of a processor from progressive test documents like this. I expect to see many more of these under such conditions.
However, there is not much help in Appendix D about what would be essential to support. Noticing that, maybe I should give up fretting about ceiling1 = ceiling2, although I do think that foreign elements and attributes have an useful place, whether there is a conformance level with regard to their benign use or not.
-----Original Message----- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:denn...@acm.org] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00142.html Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 13:30 To: 'robe...@us.ibm.com' Cc: 'off...@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Law of Unintended Consequences
One more thing about floor=ceiling.
[ ... ]
It may be that loosely-conformant is the wrong term, but neither conformant nor loosely-conformant, at the moment, determine whether interoperability will be easy or hard. What I like about loosely-conformant is that it provides that there be a conformant document in there, given certain adjustments. (There are also some edge cases that one might worry about, where dropping an attribute means there is no attribute in a way that impairs the document, table cell formulas being an interesting case. This condition only works well for ODF 1.2 because of its completeness with OpenFormula. This is an argument for recognizing those cases as loosely-conformant, but it is not my ox that gets gored if only the OpenFormula case qualifies in a conformant spreadsheet document.)
-----Original Message----- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:denn...@acm.org] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200901/msg00136.html Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 10:45 To: robe...@us.ibm.com Cc: off...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Single-Level Conformance and Law of Unintended Consequences
This also reminds me of another debate, called floor=ceiling.
Floor=Ceiling was debated in the early days of initial COBOL standardization efforts and it continued for a while. I can't recall which side of the debate Committee Chair Howard Bromberg held onto and if he flipped at any time.
Generally, producers of implementations did not look kindly at floor=ceiling and user communities (but not all of them) and especially standards sheriffs of various persuasions wanted floor=ceiling. Of course, COBOL was modularized and there were definite implementation-specific provisions (COMPUTATIONAL-1, COMPUTATIONAL-2, ... and similar aspects coming to mind), so I am not sure how much it was felt that floor=ceiling was achieved, in the end.
[ ... ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php