Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Michael Stahl <mstahl@redhat.com> wrote:
sounds nice, except:

! ODF Version(s) Extended  <!-- e.g. 1.2+ -->

this should generally be the latest ODF version that the LO release
supports, ... so what's the benefit of tracking this?

I expect that there will be features in ODF 1.3 that were implemented
as extensions to ODF 1.2 in LibreOffice. If a user of LO 6.5 saves a
file in ODF 1.2 for backwards compatibility, I wanted to be clear
about whether the file created would use this extension.

and if you select to store your files in a specific,
non-extended version in Tools->Options you don't (or at least shouldn't)
get any extensions...

I totally agree :-)  My reasoning was that once ODF 1.3 comes out, ODF
1.2 Extended might still be a user-selectable option. But perhaps that
won't be the case?

! Validation Errors  <!-- Any errors/warnings this feature will
trigger in an ODF validator, or "none" -->

i'm not sure if this is so useful - you can tell the validator if you
want to check strictly against the schema or allow extensions:

 -c: Check conformance (default for ODF 1.2 documents)
 -e: Check extended conformance (ODF 1.2 documents only)

That sounds good to me! In the past at least I tried validating
generated documents against the "extended conforming" option of the
OpenDoc Society's online validator
(http://odf-validator.rhcloud.com/), and got several errors. Assuming
that the documents are indeed "extended conforming," I wouldn't expect
any errors.

if the extensions are properly name-spaced then validation with -e
should not report any errors, and validating a document stored as
"extended" with strict conformance will inevitably report problems, so
don't do that.

Oh, certainly -- one of my main goals here was to clarify what to
expect when one validates a document. As long as the docs are expected
to pass the corresponding category of strict, conforming, or extended
conforming tests, then I think we can remove that column, or perhaps
just rename it to "False Positive Validation Errors," in case one of
the validators is incorrectly flagging the documents LO generates.


Thanks!
--R

-- 
Robinson Tryon
QA Engineer - The Document Foundation
LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald
qubit@libreoffice.org

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.