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

[Daniel Carrera]

On Sat, 2006-18-11 at 09:13 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote:
> In other words, does OO.o behaves "creatively" in some cases?

What could you possibly mean by that?


> 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.

Have you ever seen a proof that any product *never* violates a standard?
Any standard?

In general, it is impossible to prove that a product *never* violates a
standard just like it is, in general, impossible to prove that an
accused *did* *not* commit a crime. Some times you can (e.g. the accused
died before the crime) but the times where you can are rare. That's why
fair legal systems are based on some variation of "innocent until proven
guilty".

No, I can't prove that OOo never violates the standard. Such proof is
not possible to come by.

> > If you would like to test OOo's output against the ODF spec, I would
> > encourage you to try the ODF Validator
> 
> I was aware of such a tool, even if I'll confess that I had forgotten
> its exact name and location. The original question may be rephrased as
> "has any validator user already found any violation in ODF files
> produced with OO.o?"

To my knowledge, no. Though I certainly haven't done an exhaustive
search.

Best,
Daniel.
-- 
"I AM in shape. Round IS a shape."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20061118/11f50fd0/attachment-0001.pgp