On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > I'm operating on the assumption that Apache OpenOffice.org will end up with > the keys to the openoffice.org lease and will host/redirect it in some manner > for some time into the future, especially if we advance to TLP. >
There is no need for namespace URI's to resolve to an actual host. You sometimes see vendors put a documentary page at that URL, but there is nothing in the W3C namespace rec that actually requires that namespace be resolvable to an IP address. > This matters in that it would be very valuable to have those namespace URIs > resolve to whatever the definitions of the content of those namespaces happen > to be, so we can at least arrive at an agreement on what those are, du jour. > Would be nice, certainly. I know that you also advocate for implementation notes. This would be a nice supplement to that as well. > Branching to ODF namespaces, Apache namespaces, etc., are all subsequent > possibilities that do not require immediate attention. > > My main concern, as part of the acceptance of OpenOffice.org and having a > functioning podling, is the preservation of authority for those namespaces > and any activity that can be undertaken to actually know what the existing > namespaces determine and what the syntax/semantics are. > I'd put that under the header of "have implementation notes for any standards that OpenOffice claims to support". ODF is one example, but there will be others as well. > We also have a community responsibility, if we choose to accept it, where the > use by other projects needs to be supported in some amicable way. I see this > as an opportunity for OOO and LibreOffice collaboration, for example, to the > extent there is a common interest in preserving what these are. > > - Dennis > > PS: I hadn't thought of the Java and .Net ways of disambiguating the names of > externally-bindable enties and the canonical structure of class paths. Do we > have any concern for org.openoffice. ... .mumble in that context? > > -----Original Message----- > From: rabas...@gmail.com [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rob Weir > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 05:51 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Uh oh: OpenOffice.org XML Namespaces and Sun Mediatypes > > Java projects that move to Apache have a similar issue. They often > convert from their pre-existing package structure to an org.apache.foo > structure. Not sure if that is mandatory or not, but they seem to > like to converge on an Apache namespace. > > But I think XML namespaces are different, since they are embedded in > the documents as well, not only the code. As such there are > additional interoperability implications. The apps that read and > write settings in the namespace form an interoperable space. If we > changed the namespace in our documents, we'd break interoperability. > > So I'd recommend an approach like this: > > 1) For new settings, adopt an Apache name space > > 2) For old settings, to the extent that we remain compatible with > their legacy behavior, we should preserve the same legacy namespace > > 3) If we eve break legacy behavior then we should also change the > namespace. In other words, things that are not compatible should not > use the same namespace. > > 4) If there are settings that we find are critical for multiple > applications, like OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Symphony, RedOffice, etc., > then we should promote them into a future revision of the ODF > standard, into an ODF namespace. > > > -Rob > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >> It just occurred to me that a place for some sort of common agreement, and >> publication of what they mean, are the OpenOffice.org Namespaces. I assume >> these "belong" to OpenOffice.org, but governance of namespaces is odd >> business. These are also something to coordinate with the LibreOffice folk >> and others who use these namespaces for any purpose. Most of all, they need >> to be defined. >> >> (This occurred to me reading about macro-recording in LibreOffice Calc, and >> it flashed before my eyes that this is an implementation-dependent feature >> introduced by an (undocument as far as I know) namespace binding: >> >> Here is the bunch that tend to be spit out in the beginning of ODF files >> used within packages as part of fixed boilerplate in the root element: >> >> xmlns:ooo="http://openoffice.org/2004/office"; >> >> xmlns:oooc="http://openoffice.org/2004/calc"; >> >> xmlns:ooow="http://openoffice.org/2004/writer"; >> >> xmlns:rpt="http://openoffice.org/2005/report"; >> >> xmlns:tableooo="http://openoffice.org/2009/table"; >> >> The URIs all generate 404s. >> >> There are significant uses as in establishment of >> >> <config:config-item-set config:name="ooo:view-settings"> >> >> <config:config-item-set config:name="ooo:configuration-settings"> >> >> where the attribute values are QNames and they introduce a pot-full of >> unqualified item names that are specific to the QNames, above. >> >> And then there are MIME media types: >> >> application/vnd.sun.xml.ui.configuration >> >> for a subdocument "Configurations2/" in ODF packages produced by >> *OpenOffice.org producers. >> >> There are other application/vnd.sun.... MIME media types in use as well. >> >> - Dennis >> >> >> >> >> > >
