Re: [office] Agenda for August 15th ODF TC Teleconference meeting

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Regina,

Thanks!

Comments below:

On 8/10/22 20:15, Regina Henschel wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Patrick Durusau schrieb am 10.08.2022 um 22:19:
> [..]
> > I welcome any and all suggestions, rejoinders, proposals that anyone 
> > cares to contribute. It's entirely possible that I may venture some 
> > text as a starting point either later today or early tomorrow.
>
> So here is my proposal:
> (A)
> Add the following sentence to 19.811 text:formula:
> If a namespace prefix is not specified, the namespace defaults to the 
> "urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:of:1.2" namespace.
OK.
> The specification of 19.600 table:condition, 19.600 table:condition, 
> 19.639 table:expression and 19.646 table:formula already contains such 
> a sentence. Under the proposed addition for 19.811 text:formula, all 
> affected attribute descriptions specify which namespace to use when a 
> prefix is missing. Therefore, this can be omitted in item D.3).
Not 19.600 table:condition twice, yes?

> (B)
> My proposal for item D.3) in 2.2.1 OpenDocument Document:
> The specification of style:condition (19.472), table:condition 
> (19.600), table:expression (19.639), table:formula (19.646) and 
> text:formula (19.811) determines a namespace to be used for the 
> attribute value. This namespace determines the syntax and semantics of 
> formulas or expressions in the attribute value.
> If the namespace to be used is the 
> "urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:of:1.2" namespace, then the 
> formulas and expressions shall conform to Part 4 of this specification.
But doesn't setting style:condition (19.472) to Part 4 change the 
meaning of:

style:condition="odf:footnote()"

Because the condition footnote() isn't defined in Part 4?

And none of the other conditions are so defined.

*****

Not to mention that doesn't address our changing from "shall" support 
Part 4 (which was an error for style:condition) to some namespace with a 
default.

Thinking perhaps, not committed to this, that we should:

1) To Andreas' point, keep shall either use our namespace or default to 
it, but

2) May support other namespaces but that's not required for conformance, 
good for interoperability but allows conformance to remain as it is now.


> (C)
> Add in each of the five attribute descriptions:
> Producer should only use the 
> "urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:of:1.2" namespace to ensure 
> interoperability.
Producers .... yes?

Hope everyone has a great weekend!

Patrick


> Kind regards
> Regina
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature