office message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] 2.2.1 OpenDocument Document
- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
- To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:59:02 -0500
"Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
wrote on 01/09/2012 09:31:56 AM:
> From: "Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
> To: office@lists.oasis-open.org, robert_weir@us.ibm.com
> Date: 01/09/2012 09:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [office] 2.2.1 OpenDocument Document
>
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:53:38 +0100, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
>
> > <office@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 12/19/2011 03:48:23
PM:
> >
> >> From: André Rebentisch <andre.rebentisch@arsaperta.com>
> >> To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> Date: 12/19/2011 03:51 PM
> >> Subject: [office] 2.2.1 OpenDocument Document
> >> Sent by: <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >>
> >> XML 1.0 is made available as 5th edition 2008
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/
> >>
> >> The specification links XML 1.0 4th edition 2006 in section
2.2.1.
> >>
> >
> > 5th Edition of XML 1.0 made some changes related to permitted
characters,
> > changes that were not backwards compatible with earlier versions.
The
> > result is many XML standards still refer to the 4th edition.
> >
> > You can read some background on the issue here:
> > http://blog.jclark.com/2008/10/xml-10-5th-edition.html
> >
> > Moving to XML 1.1 would bring similar concerns.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that adopting 5th edition would
not
> invalidate old documents, only introduce the possibility that new
> documents would not be readable by old software. On the other hand,
since
> it is software that is producing the new documents, is it not possible
to
> legislate that they not use the new characters if they wish the documents
> to be readable by old software?
>
Sure. But one easy way to legislate that new
documents do not introduce characters that are not readable by older software
is to remain on XML 1.0 4th edition.
ODF 1.2 is build on a stack of W3C standards, including
RDF/XML, MathML, XForms, etc. I believe they are all also stuck on
4th edition. With compound documents and other formats layered on
these base standards, a and the pre-existing software, it is tricky to
upgrade support for the standards that are underneath, like XML and Unicode
itself.
But I'm certainly open to good arguments for how users
would benefit from a switch to 5th edition.
(And IIRC, there was a similar issue with OOXML, where
it referred to 5th edition and then this was reverted back to 4th edition
at the BRM. But I could be wrong on the exact timing of this.)
-Rob
> Steven
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >> Kind regards,
> >> André Rebentisch
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: office-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: office-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]