[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Suggested changes to KWord's file format
From:       Thomas Zander <zander () planescape ! com>
Date:       2002-04-16 17:18:44
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:49:30PM +0200, David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 April 2002 17:36, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 12:05:51PM +0200, David Faure wrote:
> > > On Saturday 06 April 2002 21:37, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > > > >   How seriously are you working on developing such 'common file format' ?
> > > > 
> > > > It has to be done yet. Until now, the discussion was about a common packing 
> > > > format (ZIP-based.)
> > > 
> > > We're now using ZIP indeed. The rest remains to be done.
> > > As a starter, it should be easy to port "documentinfo.xml" to the OpenOffice
> > > format for such a file, assuming their DTD has an equivalent for the fields
> > > we have (I think so, since we have very few fields). Any volunteer?
> > 
> > Ehh, the step after going into zip was to change the manifest like file. A
> > file which describes which documents are in the archive and at its basis will
> > include their mime-types.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> > The documentinfo we use would be placed in the manifest file as well. 
> 
> Are you sure about that? It seems quite a different thing to me.

Well; its not really a manifest anymore, my mistake :)
Let me quote Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>

      Disagree, metadata is metadata. I suggest to define a single metadata
    block which is extensible. The define a predefined set for which you can write
    a DTD for. This is the way most extensible spec are written at W3C at the
    moment.

> The manifest is _technical_ information about the document (which type of main document,
> which sub-docs are there in it, which images, etc.) whereas the documentinfo
> is _user_ information about it (summary, title, etc.). (Some thing like modification date
> etc. fit a bit into both categories though.).
> Ok, we _could_ put both in the same file, but it seems a bit unclean to me.

The metadata is a file which talks about the document; it sets the seperate 
components apart and includes links to them.
Let me post a _very_  old example, just to show the stuff that _can_ be in there.

    <package xmlns="http://openoffice.org/package/v1"
             xmlns:gpg="http://gpg.org/signature"
             xmlns:cvs="http://cvs.org/dtd">
        <document>
           <main href="file1" mime_type="application/xml">
              <author>
                  <name>Daniel Veillard</name>
                  <email>daniel@veillard.com</email>
              </author>
              <date>Fri Aug 17 02:03:07 CEST 2001</date>
              <namespace>http://openoffice.org/soffice</namespace>
              <namespace>http://openoffice.org/othertool</namespace>
              ....
              <cvs:history>
              revision 1.1
              date: 1998/07/24 19:24:07;  author: veillard;  state: Exp;
              Initial release
              ----------------------------
              </cvs:history>
           </main>
           <entity href="file2" mime_type="image/gif">
              <description>my nice graphic</description>
           </entity>
           <entity href="file3" mime_type="image/jpeg">
              <description>another nice graphic</description>
           </entity>
        </document>
        <date>Fri Aug 17 02:07:54 CEST 2001</date>
        <MD5>f3bc7be2de885768ab4d534d286d4785</MD5>
        <gpg:sig>11111111111111111111111</gpg:sig>
    </package>

> > The manifest is an xml stream and we proposed to use a different namespace 
> > for the document info. Things like signing/comments etc can be stored in even 
> > other namespaces.
> 
> WRT namespaces: does anyone know if we can start using them, i.e. if QDom
> will parse this stuff correctly?

running
  qt-copy/examples/tagreader-with-features/tagreader 
on the above xml shows it does :)

> > The OOo people agreed that that was the best way to go, but have not started
> > doing this yet.  I assume they are waiting for a working implementation :)
> And I'm waiting for a (common) spec - you started writing one, right ?

Hmm; yes, I did. But the last modification date was oktober.  OK; I'll put some
priority to that. It is just writing down what has been discussed for most stuff
anyway..

-- 
Thomas Zander                                            zander@earthling.net
The only thing worse than failure is the fear of trying something new

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]