Sander Marechal <> wrote
on 06/23/2008 06:01:07 PM:
> wrote:
> > Let me connect the dots for you then, using ODF 1.1.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Section 1.4 "Relax-NG Schema"
> >
> > "The normative XML Schema for the OpenDocument format is
embedded within
> > this specification. It can be obtained from the specification
document by
> > concatenating all schema fragments contained in chapters 1 to
16. All
> > schema fragments have a gray background color and line numbers."
> >
> > -----
> >
> > So the schema is declared to be normative. By using Relax
NG we have an
> > ISO-approved formal notation for indicating structural and content
> > requirements and options for XML. Since 2.4.2 "Base
Settings" is
> > obviously a schema fragment (with gray background color and line
numbers),
> > this is included in the set of normative requirements defined
by the
> > schema.
>
> I think what Dave is pointing to , is that there's nothing in the
spec
> that says an application has to use <config:config-item> element
to
> store it's application-specific base settings. It could store them
> anywhere withing the document tree using all kinds of non-inerop extensions.
>
> The element is there. Just not the text that says an application
> should/must use that to store it's base settings.
>
Right. But that can be said of every feature
of ODF, and indeed of every XML-based standard that I can think of. It
doesn't mean that they are not testable. It just means that interoperability
cannot be guaranteed by a conformance test. But that is why this TC is
needed, right? If interoperability could be guaranteed by merely defining
conformance, then we'd have no work to do.
-Rob
