[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Some ballot request - ODF 1.2 part 1 conformance clause
I am pleased that this is useful. I need to digest your responses more carefully. One observation is a hot button for me (since I dug into the MIME types and couldn't find out what a template was): Isn't it time we said what the structure and interpretation of a template document is, especially since it must have a MIME type but might not have an <office:body>. (It is possible for an <office:document> to be for a template, and the schema requires an <office:body> in that case, although I suspect one can satisfy that requirement by having an <office:body> that is effectively empty.) - Dennis PS: I am going out on a limb about <math:math>. Are you saying that there is an ODF document that has <math:math> as its content.xml root element and it has no <office:document-content> (or <office:document>) element at all? So this would be completely outside of the <office:body> model? I think this needs to be reflected in Section 2 of ODF 1.2, even if it references part 2 for details. I had assumed that <math:math> would show up on other subfiles of a package and these would be relied on from the main document, not be a main document. I see I have more homework to do. I think it should be reflected in Section 2 of part 1 somehow, even if only to indicate that there is another kind of structure defined in part 2 (and maybe 3). -----Original Message----- From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 09:06 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: 'OpenDocument TC' Subject: Re: [office] Some ballot request - ODF 1.2 part 1 conformance clause Hi Dennis, thank you very much for your feedback. It is very helpful. On 10/31/08 07:43, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [ ... ] > D1.1.2 I don't understand how there can be conforming documents with no > <office:body> element. What could the MIME type possibly be? So I would > think that the document package would have to contain a content.xml file. > The <office:document> schema requires <office:body> and it would seem to be > naturally required for the package of a complete document. Document templates which only contain style information don't require a <office:body>, and therefore also no content.xml. I'm not sure if there are use cases for having documents that contain neither a content.xml nor a styles.xml. So, what about stating that at least one of the two streams have to be present? [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]