Agree with supply "standards mode" and "hacks mode". But the default mode maybe prefer "hacks mode". We don't want to see that users sign a document using ODF Toolkit, when open with OOo/LO they find it doesn't work...
> From: Wolf Halton <wolf.hal...@gmail.com> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Date: 2011-08-04 23:49 > Subject: Re: RE: [odftk-dev] Re: request help on ODF data signature issues > > +1 default_mode=standards_compliant > > On Aug 4, 2011 10:50 AM, "Hanssens Bart" <bart.hanss...@fedict.be> wrote: > > Dare I mention "quirks mode" ? :-) > > > > In that case, I'd strongly suggest to make the standards mode the default, > > not the quirks mode (otherwise it's too easy to let this issue > proliferate) > > > > Bart > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: robert_w...@us.ibm.com [robert_w...@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 4:36 PM > > To: d...@odftoolkit.odftoolkit.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: [odftk-dev] Re: request help on ODF data signature issues > > > > So, from the ODF Toolkit perspective, I think it would be best if we had a > > flag that the programmer could set, to make it operate in "standards mode" > > or "hacks mode" or something like that. It is useful to have a "reference > > implementation" mode where it follows the standard strictly. This could > > be used for interop testing with other products. And it is also useful to > > have a mode that is compatible with current OOo/LO. > > > > -Rob > > > > Hanssens Bart <bart.hanss...@fedict.be> wrote on 08/04/2011 05:39:32 AM: > > > >> From: Hanssens Bart <bart.hanss...@fedict.be> > >> To: "d...@odftoolkit.odftoolkit.org" <d...@odftoolkit.odftoolkit.org>, > >> "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org> > >> Date: 08/04/2011 05:40 AM > >> Subject: [odftk-dev] Re: request help on ODF data signature issues > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> As far as I can tell, these are known implementation issues. > >> OOo (and most of the other products based on that code base) do not > >> follow the spec IMHO. > >> > >> See also > >> > >> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39657 (ds namespace in > >> LibreOffice) > >> http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107864 (ds namespace in > > OOo) > >> http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66276 (multiple > >> X509Certificate in OOo) > >> http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108286 > >> > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> Bart > >> > >> ---- > >> > >> From: Biao Han [mailto:hanb...@cn.ibm.com] > >> Sent: donderdag 4 augustus 2011 11:19 > >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Cc: d...@odftoolkit.odftoolkit.org > >> Subject: [odftk-dev] request help on ODF data signature issues > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I am the Apache ODF Toolkit developer and working on ODF data > >> signature feature. Several issues need to help. > >> > >> 1. Different from other xml file, such as content.xml, why > >> documentsignatures.xml is not namespace aware? For example, > >> "Signature" element, only the local name Signature, not including > >> "ds" namespace. > >> 2. Why Open Office generates three same content X509Certificate > >> elements for X509Data in documentsignatures.xml? > >> 3. How to generate XML ID datatype value? UDDI is too short... > >> OpenOffice > > ID_003a00a40036005c0099001b004900a400960062003000c500f900e300af00f7 > >> UDDI ID_79200773-ec61-43d5-b079-a26a081bfb08 > >> > >> Thanks & Regards > >> > >> Biao Han (Devin) > >> SOA Standards Growth, Emerging Technology Institute(ETI), IBM China > >> Software Development Laboratory > >> Tel:(86-10)82450541 > >> Email: hanb...@cn.ibm.com > >> Address: 3/F Ring Building, No.28 Building, Zhong Guan Cun Software > >> Park, No. 8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, > >> Beijing, P.R.C.100193 > >
