[odf-discuss] Does OO.o violate OpenDocument? If yes, where?

[Thomas Zander]

Hi Marco,

On Saturday 18 November 2006 09:13, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > 2) Provided that, for some reason, the ODF files you produce must be
> > absolutely flawless... then, as you suggested, all you have to do is
> > avoid the features that are not fully supported.
>
> I agree. The original question I quoted, however, came from a
> discussion "limited" to OO.o <=> ODF. In that context, that is if you
> only create ODF with OO.o, you *are* guaranteed (by definition) that
> you won't introduce "ODF features not fully supported", right? In
> other words, does OO.o behaves "creatively" in some cases?

There are bugs in OOo where it does do some weirdness. Things that are not 
following the spec. I know of half a dozen or so.
This is kind of like the early days of HTML.
In the HTML 3.x days it was pretty hard to manually create a html file that 
rendered the same everywhere.
Today they render the same everywhere, unless you use the newest features. 
Note that IE has less features (and more bugs) than most html-renderer which 
skews this example quite some. But the general principle is the same.
The ODF applications are at their infancy in implementing the spec, there are 
surely some bugs which will take some time to smooth out.
KOffice choose to reimplement its core text-engine for the upcoming 2.0 
release and while doing so it has ODF clearly in the design specs. This will 
surely enhance the level of compliance.

> > It still wouldn't be necessarily true. Just don't use the feature
> > that violates the standard.
>
> I agree. My post here was mainly meant to find out if such "feature"
> exist, which ones they are, and where they are officially listed.

If they exist, they are bugs so searching the bug repository of OOo would be a 
good start.
Also the testsuite you linked to is a good one as well.
Note that the official address is:
http://testsuite.opendocumentfellowship.org

With the summary page linked from the homepage being a good start.

> I can always go back to that other list and tell the OP "please
> _prove_ when and how OO.o violates the standard", but it would be
> better, and more informative, if I could point to proofs that OO.o
> never violates the standard (*) or that one must only avoid this or
> that specific feature.

Both OOo and KWord and possibly other ODF implementers follow an open design, 
which means that if someone finds a problem like the OP apparently did, it is 
very much appreciated to report it as a bug. And refer to the bug history 
whenever you are talking about the buggy-feature.
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20061118/06acb8c1/attachment-0001.pgp