Thanks for a swift very interesting answer. On 8 August 2015 at 20:01, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
> For ODF 1.2, the categories of conformant documents and compliant > processing are a bit complicated. Here is my understanding. > > 1. Implementation-dependent. Where an interpretation of some aspect of a > feature (maybe all of it) is dependent on what an implementation does. > There is no obligation to account for that in order to be a compliant > producer or consumer. > Aytha@ Optional in your document > > 2. Implementation-defined. An application-dependent case where > implementations must provide documentation of what their specific behavior > is. > Aytha@ Application defined in your document > > 3. Optionally Producible. This is a complicated case. First, the > schema's provide a great deal of optionality. So it is necessary to > analyze schemas to see what is required in the case of a given element and > its attributes, in combination with what is specified in the text about > those elements and attributes. Notice that a processor is a compliant > producer so long as the documents it produces are conformant in this manner. > Aytha@ Optional in your document > > 4. Optionally Consumable. This is an extremely complicated case. A > consumer must consume anything that is (optionally) producible in a > conformant document. That is, conformant documents shall be consumed. > However there is no obligation to interpret and preserve all of the > features encountered although those features that are interpreted must be > interpreted in accord with the standard (but 1-2 above might apply). > Aytha@ Optional in your document > > 5. Extensions. There are provision for extension by "foreign" elements, > attributes, and attribute values. These don't happen much but they do > exist and there are some principles that apply to producing and consuming > them. They are essentially implementation-dependent as far as the standard > is concerned. > Aytha@ this should be at the bottom of the optional table, since we cannot know in advance how the implementation expands the standard > > These categories apply to OOXML, more-or-less, but (4) might not be as > loose as for ODF. It is necessary to check. Also, the extension mechanism > (5) of OOXML is much more well-defined, with provisions for graceful > degradation when an extension is not recognized or is unsupported. > > As far as I know, the only documentation about what is and is not > supported in OOXML and ODF is provided in documentation produced by > Microsoft. I can provide links to them. I am not aware of any such > statements from producers of ODF-based processors. My own experience of > the ODF compliance is that it would be useful to clarify some of the cases > identified as unsupported. > thanks but the current scope is not to make the actual comparing, but just to provide the tables needed to do so in an oderly fashion. > > It seems to me that without some grounded tests that confirm > interoperability of various feature cases, it will be very difficult to > provide comprehensive information about differences in implementations of > ODF and OOXML. > Agreed, I have just experienced it with the low level zip implementation, but luckely that is another project later. thanks again rgds jan i. > > > -- Dennis E. Hamilton > [email protected] > [email protected] +1-206-779-9430 > https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A > X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jan i [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2015 10:39 > To: [email protected]; Aytha E <[email protected]> > Subject: Problems with "Optional" in the ODF and OOXML standard. > > Hi > > Aytha, please meet the corinthia team (did you remember to subscribe to the > list?) > > Team, please meet Aytha who is doing a academic research to provide us with > tables > on differences in implementations. > > We want tables to cover 2 situations: > - Application defined features (in this case how an implementation handles > the feature) > - Optional features (in this case does the implementation handle the > feature). > > "application defined" is clearly marked in the standards, but it seems > "optional" are not, > can anybody give Aytha a hand by telling how to identify optional ? > > Please remember "reply all" as I am not sure Aytha is subscribed. > > thanks in advance. > rgds > jan i. > >
