incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Uh oh: XML Namespaces and Sun Mediatypes
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:27:37 GMT
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> I'm operating on the assumption that Apache will end up with the keys
to the lease and will host/redirect it in some manner for some time into the
future, especially if we advance to TLP.

There is no need for namespace URI's to resolve to an actual host.
You sometimes see vendors put a documentary page at that URL, but
there is nothing in the W3C namespace rec that actually requires that
namespace be resolvable to an IP address.

> This matters in that it would be very valuable to have those namespace URIs resolve to
whatever the definitions of the content of those namespaces happen to be, so we can at least
arrive at an agreement on what those are, du jour.

Would be nice, certainly.  I know that you also advocate for
implementation notes.  This would be a nice supplement to that as

> Branching to ODF namespaces, Apache namespaces, etc., are all subsequent possibilities
that do not require immediate attention.
> My main concern, as part of the acceptance of and having a functioning
podling, is the preservation of authority for those namespaces and any activity that can be
undertaken to actually know what the existing namespaces determine and what the syntax/semantics

I'd put that under the header of "have implementation notes for any
standards that OpenOffice claims to support".  ODF is one example, but
there will be others as well.

> We also have a community responsibility, if we choose to accept it, where the use by
other projects needs to be supported in some amicable way.  I see this as an opportunity
for OOO and LibreOffice collaboration, for example, to the extent there is a common interest
in preserving what these are.
>  - Dennis
> PS: I hadn't thought of the Java and .Net ways of disambiguating the names of externally-bindable
enties and the canonical structure of class paths.  Do we have any concern for org.openoffice.
... .mumble in that context?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of Rob Weir
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 05:51
> To:
> Subject: Re: Uh oh: XML Namespaces and Sun Mediatypes
> Java projects that move to Apache have a similar issue.  They often
> convert from their pre-existing package structure to an
> structure.  Not sure if that is mandatory or not, but they seem to
> like to converge on an Apache namespace.
> But I think XML namespaces are different, since they are embedded in
> the documents as well, not only the code.  As such there are
> additional interoperability implications.  The apps that read and
> write settings in the namespace form an interoperable space.  If we
> changed the namespace in our documents, we'd break interoperability.
> So I'd recommend an approach like this:
> 1) For new settings, adopt an Apache name space
> 2) For old settings, to the extent that we remain compatible with
> their legacy behavior, we should preserve the same legacy namespace
> 3) If we eve break legacy behavior then we should also change the
> namespace.  In other words, things that are not compatible should not
> use the same namespace.
> 4) If there are settings that we find are critical for multiple
> applications, like OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Symphony, RedOffice, etc.,
> then we should promote them into a future revision of the ODF
> standard, into an ODF namespace.
> -Rob
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <> wrote:
>> It just occurred to me that a place for some sort of common agreement, and publication
of what they mean, are the Namespaces.  I assume these "belong" to,
but governance of namespaces is odd business.  These are also something to coordinate with
the LibreOffice folk and others who use these namespaces for any purpose.  Most of all, they
need to be defined.
>> (This occurred to me reading about macro-recording in LibreOffice Calc, and it flashed
before my eyes that this is an implementation-dependent feature introduced by an (undocument
as far as I know) namespace binding:
>> Here is the bunch that tend to be spit out in the beginning of ODF files used within
packages as part of fixed boilerplate in the root element:
>>        xmlns:ooo=""
>>        xmlns:oooc=""
>>        xmlns:ooow=""
>>        xmlns:rpt=""
>>        xmlns:tableooo=""
>> The URIs all generate 404s.
>> There are significant uses as in establishment of
>>        <config:config-item-set config:name="ooo:view-settings">
>>        <config:config-item-set config:name="ooo:configuration-settings">
>> where the attribute values are QNames and they introduce a pot-full of unqualified
item names that are specific to the QNames, above.
>> And then there are MIME media types:
>>        application/vnd.sun.xml.ui.configuration
>> for a subdocument "Configurations2/" in ODF packages produced by *
>> There are other application/vnd.sun.... MIME media types in use as well.
>>  - Dennis

View raw message