<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - FILESAVE wrong values for attribute chart:regression-type in ODF 1.2" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130133#c6">Comment # 6</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - FILESAVE wrong values for attribute chart:regression-type in ODF 1.2" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130133">bug 130133</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:michael.stahl@cib.de" title="Michael Stahl (CIB) <michael.stahl@cib.de>"> Michael Stahl (CIB)</a> <pre>(In reply to Regina Henschel from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=130133#c4">comment #4</a>) > The patch does not solve the problem entirely. > > We would need for writing: > ODF 1.2 strict: do not write it at all ==> Done with the patch > ODF 1.2 extended: write it in 'loext' namespace ==> ?? > ODF 1.3 strict and extended: write it in 'style' namespace ==> Nothing to do > > In case 'loext' is written, we would need to make all active LO versions > able to read it in loext namespace. yes, that's a bit of a problem, we'd have to first add the ability to read the loext attribute and then wait a few years until most users have upgraded and then we can write it. apparently these values are written since 2013 if not earlier. > @Michael: What do you think about the case "ODF 1.2 extended", which now > still produces invalid files? given that we need to wait anyway, my question is: in a couple of years, who wants to export ODF 1.2 extended, i'd expect the default to be ODF 1.3 extended then, which already solves the problem... so given the timing i'm not sure if it's worth the effort to start doing anything about 1.2 extended now.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>