RE: [office] Conforming OpenDocument Text Document, etc. [Take 2]

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 03/30/2009 
01:47:21 PM:

> 
> 1. The section number 1.4.2.5 is used four times.  The second through 
fourth
> consecutive occurrences are obviously meant to be 1.4.2.6, 1.4.2.7, and
> 1.4.2.8, respectively.  I noticed this in the previous version and then 
I
> forgot to say anything about it.  My apologies.
> 

Not a problem.  The draft text, if approved, will need to be integrated 
into the current draft.  I wouldn't presume that my text will be any less 
improved by Patrick than any other member's text.

> 2. The (Dx.1) paragraphs (x = 3 .. 8) should probably begin with 
something
> like "If the document is represented using a single XML document, the 
root
> <office:document> element shall ..." to be parallel with the 
conditionality
> of the (Dx.2) paragraphs.  (I have not reviewed the rules for all of 
those
> flavors to confirm that non-trivial non-package representations are 
actually
> possible in every case, but shall not worry about that at this point on
> faith that there are useful valid instances.  The language works either
> way.)
> 

It means the same thing either way, right?


> 3. Are we intentionally omitting templates as corresponding to any of 
these?
> Just a question.  Conforming templates strike me as interesting for
> interoperability arrangements.  I can sympathize with that being one
> conformance target too far.
> 

I did not accidentally omit templates, if that is what you are asking. I'm 
not opposed to them either.  But I think what makes templates interesting 
is what an ODF Consumer does with them.  In other words, a template is 
interesting based on how it is treated, but not much interesting based on 
what it is.  So if we wanted to say anything about templates, we might 
consider saying something for ODF Consumers.  On the other hand, it may 
not be reasonable to require that all consumers understand templates...

> 4. I assume that this language is proposed to be inserted in cd01-rev01
> section 1.4.2 following subsection 1.4.2.2, with the appropriate 
bold-face
> rendering of conformance terms.
> 

Obviously in a conformance clause all uses of "shall" are used 
normatively.  This isn't the place to be informal.  The numbering and font 
choice is Patrick's call.  I think we are still debating whether to bold 
all control terms or not.


> 5. I endorse your capitalizations: Conforming OpenDocument Document,
> Conforming OpenDocument Text Document, etc., establishing these proper 
nouns
> as tied to the conformance target and language.  IMPORTANT NOTE: this
> convention is not consistently honored elsewhere in section 1.4 and we
> should do so (e.g., it is "conformant OpenDocument document" in 
conformance
> clause (D1), not "Conformant OpenDocument Document," and common terms 
rather
> than proper noun phrases are used elsewhere with regard to "extended
> document," and so on with regard to consumers, producers, and 
processors).
> Having agreed on the proper names, we will need to be careful elsewhere 
in
> the document when conformance targets are called out in normative
> statements. 
> 

Honestly, I was capitalizing them as important words in headers, not 
necessary suggesting them as proper nouns.  But I agree we should be 
consistent in however we do this.  It might be worth looking at a few 
other standards and see how they have done it.

> 6. Also, I notice that the capitalization is not consistent everywhere 
in
> these additions either. 
> 

We are fortunate to have a professional editor to make the final text look 
less like it was designed by committee.

> 7. When these conformance targets were first proposed, I was not that
> disturbed by the idea that these targets have no extended-document
> counterparts.  I am becoming less comfortable with that idea.  I am also
> concerned that, even if there is no defined target, people will talk 
about
> OpehDocument Text Documents, and [E/e]xtended OpenDocument Text 
Documents
> and other permutations in a casual way.  I'm not sure that we are done 
with
> this, although I understand that goes beyond the reach of this specific
> proposal.  Is there anything afoot with regard to simplifying the
> nomenclature while also helping to avoid confusion of casual/careless 
use
> with named conformance targets?
> 

Well, we can't prevent people from talking in a casual way, can we?  All 
we can do in making a standard is recommend how people should talk in a 
formal way about ODF.

I'm all in favor of simplifying the nomenclature, though I am not 
optimistic that would solve any issues related to casually speaking about 
ODF, since those who speak casually are less likely to have read what is 
actually in the standard, and therefore are outside of our direct sphere 
of influence.

>  - Dennis
> 
> [Wondering momentarily how translators deal with proper names for 
languages
> that don't use Roman-alphabet capitalization conventions and moves on,
> musing that, like XML namespace local names and the specification prefix
> bindings, these are not to be translated?]
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200903/msg00112.html
> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 18:48
> To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [office] Conforming OpenDocument Text Document, etc. [Take 2]
> 
> This is the 2nd iteration of the proposal I made back on the 16th: 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200903/msg00069.html
> 
> Based on feedback from the list I've made a couple changes:
> 
> 1) I've removed the requirement that the files use particular 
extensions.
> 2) I've removed the requirement that they files limited themselves to 
the 
> feature sets expressed in the appendix. 
> 3) I've added a requirement that the document of a particular type 
> actually have the corresponding child element of <office:body>
> 
> -Rob
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1.4.2.3 Conforming OpenDocument Text Document
> 
> (D3) A conforming OpenDocument Text Document shall meet all requirements 

> of a Conforming OpenDocument Document, as well as the following 
additional 
> requirements:
> 
> (D3.1) The <office:document> element shall have an office:mimetype 
> attribute with the value "application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text".
> (D3.2) If the document is OpenDocument package then it shall contain a 
> mimetype stream containing the string 
> "application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text".
> (D3.3) The <office:body> element shall have the child element 
> <office:text>
> 
> 
> 1.4.2.4 Conforming OpenDocument Spreadsheet Document
> 
> (D4) A conforming OpenDocument Spreadsheet Document shall meet all 
> requirements of a Conforming OpenDocument Document, as well as the 
> following additional requirements:
> 
> (D4.1) The <office:document> element shall have an office:mimetype 
> attribute with the value 
"application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet".
> (D4.2) If the document is OpenDocument package then it shall contain a 
> mimetype stream containing the string 
> "application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet".
> [ ... ]
> 
> 1.4.2.5 Conforming OpenDocument Drawing Document
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 1.4.2.5 Conforming OpenDocument Presentation Document
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 1.4.2.5 Conforming OpenDocument Chart Document
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 1.4.2.5 Conforming OpenDocument Image Document
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 
>