[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] final updates
On 7/2/07, marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> It says nothing whatsoever about conformance. And an implementation that
> ignores the recommendation is still conformant. Are you confusing the SHOULD
> definition that actually applies with the RFC 2119 definition of SHOULD?
>
> >>>
> 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> particular item, but the full implications ***must*** be understood and
>
> carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
>
> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt >
>
> <<<
I am meaning something like the above.
...
> > That's not quite right, but I can't think of anything better. It at
> > least gets away from worrying about the specific structure of the
> > files, and focusses on the content, and it make implementors aware of
> > the issue even if they don't implement metadata support.
> >
>
> You are giving away an interoperability conformance requirement, Bruce.
I don't think so. I agree with the consensus that we cannot reasonably
mandate preservation of xml:id or other attributes in the spec.
A special attribute named xml:space
may be attached to an element to signal an intention that in that element,
white space should be preserved by applications. In valid documents, this
attribute, like any other, MUST be declared
if it is used. When declared, it MUST be given as an enumerated
type whose values
are one or both of "default" and "preserve".
For example:
<!ATTLIST poem xml:space (default|preserve) 'preserve'>
<!ATTLIST pre xml:space (preserve) #FIXED 'preserve'>
xml:space
attribute. This specification does not give meaning to any value of xml:space
other than "default" and "preserve".The metadata proposal has gotten to its final (I think quite sound)
state through a lot of hard work at consensus building in this
committee. The final product is in fact a reflection of that
collaborative work.
I think in practice it'll work out quite fine. In the past couple of
days I've seen public commitments from two major implementors to
support the metadata proposal; I'm happy to work with them so they do
the right thing on the details.
If they do the wrong thing, they'll hear from me :-)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]