Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: ODF-Next
    • Labels:
      None
    • Environment:
    • Proposal:
      Hide

      1. Use the reference [xml-names] Tim Bray, et.al., Namespaces in XML 1.0 (second edition), W3C Recommendation 16 August 2006, http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816/ (See OFFICE-2148 resolution)

      2. In a section that profiles the ODF dependency on [xml-names] for XML documents that comprise a Package or ODF document representation, asser that "relative URIs shall not be used as namespace names."

      3. Also adapt a section that profiles the ODF dependency on [xml-names] to the effect that

      Namespace declarations in an XML document shall appear either directly or via default attributes declared in an internal subset of the DTD, if any. [Note: This requirement ensures that the XML document does not require a validating XML processor in order to be namespace-well-formed.]

      4. [Any proposal concerning RFC3986 vs. RFC2396 TBD.]

      5.1.2 Adapt the conformance clause for extended/conformant ODF 1.2 documents, where the XML conformance profiling is stated, to the effect that

      THe XML documents that comprise the ODF document reprresentation shall be namespace-valid [xml-names].

      5.1.3 Adapt the conformance material in the ODF 1.2 Part 3 Packages specification to stipulate to the effect that

      The XML documents that are defined herein to be the essential parts of an ODF Package and not specific to representation of an ODF Document shall be namespace-valid [xml-names].

      Show
      1. Use the reference [xml-names] Tim Bray, et.al., Namespaces in XML 1.0 (second edition), W3C Recommendation 16 August 2006, http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816/ (See OFFICE-2148 resolution) 2. In a section that profiles the ODF dependency on [xml-names] for XML documents that comprise a Package or ODF document representation, asser that "relative URIs shall not be used as namespace names." 3. Also adapt a section that profiles the ODF dependency on [xml-names] to the effect that — Namespace declarations in an XML document shall appear either directly or via default attributes declared in an internal subset of the DTD, if any. [Note: This requirement ensures that the XML document does not require a validating XML processor in order to be namespace-well-formed.] — 4. [Any proposal concerning RFC3986 vs. RFC2396 TBD.] 5.1.2 Adapt the conformance clause for extended/conformant ODF 1.2 documents, where the XML conformance profiling is stated, to the effect that — THe XML documents that comprise the ODF document reprresentation shall be namespace-valid [xml-names] . — 5.1.3 Adapt the conformance material in the ODF 1.2 Part 3 Packages specification to stipulate to the effect that — The XML documents that are defined herein to be the essential parts of an ODF Package and not specific to representation of an ODF Document shall be namespace-valid [xml-names] . —

      Description

      For ODF 1.2, it is proposed that the [xml-names] reference be to "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation 16 August 2006," http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816/ (see OFFICE-2148).

      In previous versions of ODF specifictions, [xml-names] refers to "Namespaces in XML, W3C Recommendation 14 January 1999," http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/

      Most differences are benign. However, there are a few substantive differences that must be accounted for:

      1. The 2006 W3C Recommendation SUPERSEDES the 1999 W3C Recommendation.

      2. Relative URIs are deprecated as namespace names.

      3. There is clarification about where namespace declarrations must appear, and that may require a normative profile clause.

      4. [RFC3986] is referenced instead of [RFC2396].

      5. The Conformance clauses are different.

      5.1 For XML documents, there are now two conformance classes: namespace-well-formed documents and namespace-valid documents are all conformant documents. The namespace-well-formed documents correspond exactly to the only conformant documents of the 1999 specification. The namespace-valid documents are namespace-well-formed documents for which it is the case that "no attributes with a declared type of ID, IDREF(S), ENTITY(IES), or NOTATION contain any colons."

      5.1.1 For ODF 1.2 documents, a namespace-well-formed document could be defined as one in which every XML document that comprises the ODF document representation is a namespace-well-formed XML document. For ODF 1.2 documents, a namespace-valid document could be defined as one in which every XML document that comprises the ODF document representation is a namespace-valid XML document.

      5.1.2 We could then assert that a extended/conformant ODF 1.2 document shall be a namespace-well-formed document and that it should/shall be a namespace-valid document.

      5.1.3 For ODF 1.2 packages, we might assert that at least those XML documents defined as essential to the package structure itself in Part 3 shall be namespace-well-formed XML documents and should/shall be namespace-valid XML documents.

      5.2 There are now definitions for [xml-names] conforming processors. A processor, in this context, is a subsystem that would be used by an ODF document consumer. This does not directly express conditions on ODF consumers and producers. Instead, we could profile ODF cases as follows,

      5.2.1 An extended/conformant ODF producer could be defined such that it all XML documents that comprise the produced ODF document representation shall be namespace-well-formed XML documents and should/shall be namespace-valid XML documents.

      5.2.2 The existing definition of an extended/conformant ODF consumer should work without modification so long as it is expressed in terms of extended/conformant ODF documents.

      5.3 [xml-names] now specifies the behavior of a processor when it detects that the namespace-validity or namespace-well-formedness conditions are not met. It seems preferable to state, for ODF packages and ODF documents, that the behavior is implementation-dependent, since it is the ODF consumer that decides how to act on what a compliant [xml-names] processor reports to it, including how to make a meaningful report from the ODF implementation to the office software user.

      Related Issues:

      OFFICE-2148 on XML Namespaces

      OFFICE-2155 on Reconciling ODF 1.2 External References

        Attachments

          Activity

            People

            • Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              orcmid Dennis Hamilton (Inactive)
            • Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated: