On Jueves 15 Julio 2010 12:54:01 Jaroslaw Staniek escribió: > On 15 July 2010 19:39, Carlos Licea wrote: > > I'm very pleased you are in favor of this proposal. However, I do find it > > odd, after all what we are going to do is no longer valid ODF, it seems > > to me that you were more concerned with interoperability with OOo rather > > than ODF in general. > > "Valid odf" was used here a few times. Side note, could someone clarify: > isn't allowing custom namespaces the purpose of going with XML from > the very beginning? That's just what I thought, the whole point was that we could agree on some basic functionality as a foundation and then on top add our own tags (music shape, anyone?.) I think that the intention of "valid" was "file that only contains elements defined by the standard." But yet again, we should be free to expand the standard. -- Carlos Licea _______________________________________________ koffice-devel mailing list koffice-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel