RE: ODF 1.2 Approval and Extensions (was RE: [libreoffice-users] Calc corrupted an Excel xlsx f...)

I didn't ask the question about extensions.  I was answering the question.

You can specify the version of ODF output that is produced by going to Tools | Options | Load/Save 
| General | ODF format version [1.0/1.1, 1.2, 1.2 extended (recommended)]

My response is that I have no idea what 1.2 extended allows nor the consequences of producing 1.2 
(or 1.1) and inadvertently using a feature not supported at those levels.  Nor can one know what 
the impact is on another implementation of ODF 1.0/1.1 or 1.2 if some extension is actually 
encountered.

I think your suggestions are all good for improving the interoperability of OpenOffice.org via ODF 
and also having Users be able to understand the consequences of their choices.  

A features list won't completely solve the interchange problem.  What is needed is to know how the 
XML inside the ODF 1.2 document is extended to provide the feature.  That is what anyone else will 
run into if they want to support the feature in a compatible way.  But I think that is all on the 
right path.  When I talk about implementation notes I am thinking of mostly support in the document 
format, but it is all good to have and know.

I don't understand the reference to a legal case.  And how does Microsoft *supporting* ODF 
Standardization activities justify a case, or are you assuming this behavior is a consequence of an 
old case?  Could be a factor, of course.  I don't have any way to know how much.  

I think the implementation notes were partly inspired by a need to demonstrate that Microsoft was 
not doing things that contravened the standard.  I think MSFT may have felt compelled to account 
for deviations in their support of the format in order to be completely transparent about what they 
were doing.  That's my sense of it based on very casual observation.  More than that, I think 
implementation notes are a good thing regardless. It is valuable to the development team, to those 
who want to interoperate, and to those who need to determine whether there minimum requirements for 
ODF features are satisfied by a given product.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: e-letter [mailto:inpost@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 15:46
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: Re: ODF 1.2 Approval and Extensions (was RE: [libreoffice-users] Calc corrupted an Excel 
xlsx f...)

On 08/09/2011, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
...
> I have no idea what it means to be using 1.2 extended (other than it being
> the recommended default).

Is this a legitimate question to ask the programmers?

> There is no way to identify an ODF document as "1.2 extended".

I've been experimenting to use the flat xml odt format (to enable
subversion control) and notice that the element 'office' does show the
attribute 'version=1.2'. However, cannot see an indication within LO
user interface to indicate office file format version.

> no way to tell as an user whether a document written with that option set
> *actually* depends on a LibreOffice extension or not.  Using 1.1 as my
> output format, or using 1.2 as my output format (not extended), I have never
> received a warning that my document uses features that are not supported by
> the target format.  I don't know if that is because I have not done anything
> to require an extension or because I am not being told.

This should be as important than telling the user that saving a
document in a non-standard m$ format

> And finally, I have no way of telling what another consumer will do if an
> actual extension feature is encountered in a document identified as being
> ODF 1.2.

A detailed features list would solve this problem

> Participants from Microsoft have not voted against advancement of this
> specification toward becoming a standard even once.  Not once.  Not ever on
> the ODF TC.  To my limited knowledge, participants representing National
> Bodies at the ISO and also associated with Microsoft have never voted
> against approval of ODF or any updates to ODF that have been made so far at
> ISO.

Good to hear; further justification for the EU legal case that occurred.

-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted