RE: [libreoffice-users] Re: Assessing ODF Conformance (Re: OASIS Standard ODF 1.2 Approved)

<orcmid comments="below" />

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro [mailto:pedlino@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 20:00
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: Assessing ODF Conformance (Re: OASIS Standard ODF 1.2 Approved)

Hi Dennis

It's interesting that you find out about this now...

When I did some tests back in May 2011 and I questioned if TDF shouldn't
worry about this and have its own tool, nobody found it important...

http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Odt-size-difference-between-MS-Office-11-and-LO-3-3-2-tt2978634.html#a2985444

I guess too much information is lost in these mailing lists...

<orcmid>
  hi Pedro,

  Concerning the weird ODF Validator results you noticed in May,
  I can add a little of what I had encountered independently.
  I agree that it is difficult to find like-minded people who 
  think these are important to reconcile.

   - Dennis

  BACKGROUND

  I was a newcomer to this list in June, I think.  Mining older 
  list posts doesn't seem to be in my DNA.  I think I knew about
  the <manifest:manifest> manifest:version disconnect before that
  though.  I shall have to look.  I know it came up in discussions
  on some list that I was on before here.

  I don't think OASIS needs to do an ODF validator, there is at
  least one already and it is more about making a concerted
  effort to verify what they do and don't detect and keep
  improving them.  It needs to be a publicly built and supported
  tool, that is exercised more by folks looking for ODF discrepancies
  in files from products or in the validator itself.  It takes a
  community of practical people, not a standards body, in my
  experience.

  I think you were seeing a situation where the validator was
  updated to final ODF 1.2 and so was OOo-3.4 and no one was worrying
  about the down-level compatibility issues -- not the ODF TC
  either.

  My approach to this is to propose an OIC TC Advisory that 
  recommends ignoring the rigidity of the manifest:version
  requirement, advise validators to be forgiving (maybe warnings
  instead of errors about it), and advise consumers to work
  with and without it in incoming documents.

  I think it is a practical matter and a pragmatic solution
  matters.  

  I stumbled on this in an unexpected way on a document forensic
  analysis on a completely different issue when I noticed that
  the addition of <manifest:manifest> version broke the strict 
  conformance to syntax that is implemented in what Microsoft 
  Office 2007 and 2010 accept as well-formed ODF 1.0/1.1. 
  (Office will "repair" the file to ODF 1.1 compliance
  and continue, but it scares users no end to be told the input
  file is corrupt.) 

  Apparently older versions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice 
  ignore manifest attributes they weren't built to support, 
  but the ODF Validator is more strict about it.  

  There is no guidance of that sort in the ODF specification itself.

</orcmid>




--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Assessing-ODF-Conformance-Re-OASIS-Standard-ODF-1-2-Approved-tp3388789p3392038.html
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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