LibreOffice extensions to ODF: Improving documentation

[Michael Stahl]

On 27.11.2014 15:07, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Michael Stahl <mstahl at redhat.com> wrote:
>> sounds nice, except:
>>
>>> ! ODF Version(s) Extended  <!-- e.g. 1.2+ -->
>>
>> this should generally be the latest ODF version that the LO release
>> supports, ... so what's the benefit of tracking this?
> 
> I expect that there will be features in ODF 1.3 that were implemented
> as extensions to ODF 1.2 in LibreOffice. If a user of LO 6.5 saves a
> file in ODF 1.2 for backwards compatibility, I wanted to be clear
> about whether the file created would use this extension.

hmm if the user says "ODF 1.2" then no, if "ODF 1.2 extended" then yes,
but see below ...

>> and if you select to store your files in a specific,
>> non-extended version in Tools->Options you don't (or at least shouldn't)
>> get any extensions...
> 
> I totally agree :-)  My reasoning was that once ODF 1.3 comes out, ODF
> 1.2 Extended might still be a user-selectable option. But perhaps that
> won't be the case?

well i don't think it's likely, we don't have "ODF 1.1 extended" now for
a counter-example; i don't think that it existed after OOo 3.0 added ODF
1.2...  indeed my install of OOo 3.0.1 has only "ODF 1.0/1.1" and "ODF
1.2" as options.

>>> ! Validation Errors  <!-- Any errors/warnings this feature will
>>> trigger in an ODF validator, or "none" -->
>>
>> i'm not sure if this is so useful - you can tell the validator if you
>> want to check strictly against the schema or allow extensions:
>>
>>  -c: Check conformance (default for ODF 1.2 documents)
>>  -e: Check extended conformance (ODF 1.2 documents only)
> 
> That sounds good to me! In the past at least I tried validating
> generated documents against the "extended conforming" option of the
> OpenDoc Society's online validator
> (http://odf-validator.rhcloud.com/), and got several errors. Assuming
> that the documents are indeed "extended conforming," I wouldn't expect
> any errors.

there were some errors there in the past because extension elements and
attributes used standard ODF namespaces, which is not allowed.
hopefully those should be fixed now.