Conformance class attribute proposal (DR 08-0012)

[Innovimax SARL]

Jesper,

Just a matter of detail, while I'm reading (which doesn't imply I support
this proposal)

I don't think it is a good idea to enforce the type of the value to be a
float. We don't know what the future would be and we may end up willing to
have something like "1.2.1" or event "1.2-extended"

Cheers,

Mohamed

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Jesper Lund Stocholm <
jesper.stocholm at ciber.dk> wrote:

>  *Conformance attribute proposal:*
>
>
>
> Shawn and I have thought about the conformance attribute – especially in
> the light of the changed namespace for strict documents.
>
>
>
> We’d like to propose the following change:
>
>
>
> 1.       remove the conformance clause attribute that was created during
> the BRM
>
> 2.       Add a new optional “version”-attribute on the root elements, i.e.
> for WordProcessing, Presentation and Spreadsheet-documents.
>
>
>
> Rationale:
>
> The conformance clause was added to be able to distinguish between
> documents of different conformance classes – a proposal created at the BRM.
> Now that we have created an even stronger tool (changing the namespace for
> strict documents) we don’t need this attribute any more. Further – should it
> remain, it would be a source of ambiguity while allowing a strict document
> (namespace-wise) to specify a conformance class value of “transitional”.
> What we do need, however, is a way to specify versioning of the applied
> specification.
>
>
>
> So – there are all sorts of nitty-gritty details to how to do the
> version-attribute. A suggestion would be to have the constraints on the
> attribute vary between strict and transitional schemas. So the version
> attribute could be created as this
>
>
>
> *strict*
>
> default: 1.1 IS29500:2008
>
> constrain: MinInclusive=”1.1”, type=”xs:double”
>
>
>
> We could have the spec specify that these values are reserved:
>
>
>
> 1.1: IS29500
>
> 1.2: IS29500 (amd/cor 1)
>
>
>
> *transitional*
>
> default: 1.0 (ECMA-376 1st ed)
>
> constrain: MinInclusive=”1.0”, type=”xs:double”
>
>
>
> We could have the spec specify that these values are reserved:
>
>
>
> 1.0: ECMA-376 1st ed
>
> 1.1: IS29500
>
> 1.2: IS29500 (amd/cor 1)
>
>
>
> The important thing at this point is not the details (we’ll sort these out
> in Copenhagen) but to get a consensus that this is a path we should proceed
> on.
>
>
>
> *Jesper Lund Stocholm**
> *[image: cid:013131611 at 18122007-1E12]
> Lautruphøj 1-3
> DK-2750 Ballerup
> Denmark
>
> Tlf.: +45 30 94 55 70
> Email: jesper.stocholm at ciber.dk
>
>
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090612/54b3b1b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090612/54b3b1b8/attachment.gif>