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:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 15:46 To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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
