Again, I support this proposal<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Mohamed<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/6/8 Jirka Kosek <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jirka@kosek.cz">jirka@kosek.cz</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Shawn Villaron wrote:<br>
<br>
> I do worry about how each of us are reacting to the proposed<br>
> namespace change. As I tried to explain in my "slippery slope" mail<br>
> about a week ago, I worry that some people will interpret that change<br>
> as a decree that since we're introducing one breaking change into<br>
> strict, that we can introduce as many breaking changes as we'd like.<br>
> It's this logic that poses a substantial risk to the strict<br>
> conformance class. Every breaking change we make to strict raises<br>
> the cost to implementers to switch over to strict. If we really want<br>
> to encourage implementers to switch, we need to be very careful with<br>
> the changes we're making; if we're not, we could be actively<br>
> discouraging the outcome that many of us would like to see.<br>
<br>
</div>I see you concerns here, and my initial position was not change<br>
namespace for Strict at all. But as it seems that this is not the major<br>
position, I'm trying to propose changes that IMHO make sense in this new<br>
namespace setup.<br>
<br>
I don't think that change to unqualified attributes adds any additional<br>
significant complexity in terms of refactoring existing code to deal<br>
with this.<br>
<br>
For example code for fetching w:val attribute from w:sz element has to<br>
do something like:<br>
<br>
getAttribute("<a href="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" target="_blank">http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main</a>",<br>
"val")<br>
<br>
if we change namespace for Strict but we stick with the current<br>
attribute setup, code has to be changed to:<br>
<br>
getAttribute("<a href="http://purl.oclc.org/ooxml/wordprocessingml/main" target="_blank">http://purl.oclc.org/ooxml/wordprocessingml/main</a>", "val")<br>
<br>
if my proposal about unqualified attributes is accepted then this code<br>
become:<br>
<br>
getAttribute("", "val")<br>
<br>
So existing code has to be changed anyway because this change is<br>
triggered by change in Strict namespace.<br>
<br>
I think that breaking would be to propose change to element/attribute<br>
names, for example in order to unify them between WordprocessingML and<br>
SpreadsheetML. This is tempting, but it will create too big gap between<br>
Strict and Transitional and will prevent using same tools and knowledge<br>
to deal with formats.<br>
<br>
I hope that you will have fruitful discussion about relation between T<br>
and S in Copenhagen.<br>
<br>
Jirka<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Jirka Kosek e-mail: <a href="mailto:jirka@kosek.cz">jirka@kosek.cz</a> <a href="http://xmlguru.cz" target="_blank">http://xmlguru.cz</a><br>
------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Professional XML consulting and training services<br>
DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Innovimax SARL<br>Consulting, Training & XML Development<br>9, impasse des Orteaux<br>75020 Paris<br>Tel : +33 9 52 475787<br>Fax : +33 1 4356 1746<br><a href="http://www.innovimax.fr">http://www.innovimax.fr</a><br>
RCS Paris 488.018.631<br>SARL au capital de 10.000 €<br>