You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@poi.apache.org by Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org> on 2018/08/16 22:04:01 UTC
Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
Hi,
as we have a discussion on the user list - how about upgrading to OOXML v3? (see bug #56205)
Andi
PS: I'm still busy with removing OPOIFS ... but I think I could move this one in ...
Re: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
Posted by Greg Woolsey <gr...@gmail.com>.
I don't know enough about the differences to have an opinion either way,
and won't have time to Google the diffs for myself for a few weeks. As
long as the POI APIs stay backward compatible (with current 4.0.0 APIs) it
shouldn't matter to me. The few places I touch CT* classes outside POI,
it's almost always because I'm stuck on an older version and I've
improved/extended the higher level APIs in trunk already to remove that
dependency when I update.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:04 PM Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as we have a discussion on the user list - how about upgrading to OOXML
> v3? (see bug #56205)
>
> Andi
>
> PS: I'm still busy with removing OPOIFS ... but I think I could move this
> one in ...
>
>
>
Re: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
Posted by "pj.fanning" <fa...@yahoo.com>.
My opinion is that it would be good to release 4.0.0 soon and that we should
do a feature freeze shortly.
The upgrading of the schema seems like a nice-to-have as opposed to a
must-have for 4.0.0.
--
Sent from: http://apache-poi.1045710.n5.nabble.com/POI-Dev-f2312866.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
RE: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
Posted by "Murphy, Mark" <mu...@metalexmfg.com>.
If we can shift to 3rd edition without major rewrites, then that is fine. I looked at bug #56205, and it appears that 3rd edition should be ok. Most of the changes are in Word anyway, and that is not really a stable API yet.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alain FAGOT BÉAREZ [mailto:abearez@for-scala.it]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 8:57 AM
To: POI Developers List <de...@poi.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
As far as I understand, this will only generate the CT* and ST* classes for the complete OOXML jar. But the ooxml-lite will not be affected until we write tests that use the new classes.
I can only see one benefit for those who like Greg depend on some features not yet wrapped in org.apache.poi API: where they have access to the CT* object from the higher level API, they can start with low level tweaking.
I still miss the down side of the upgrade.
Best regards,
Alain
Gesendet mit BlueMail
-------- Originale Nachricht --------
Von: "Murphy, Mark" <mu...@metalexmfg.com>
Gesendet: Fri Aug 17 09:13:33 GMT-03:00 2018
An: 'POI Developers List' <de...@poi.apache.org>
Betreff: RE: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
This is fine for reading documents which conform to the newer standards, but we should always make sure that on write we conform to the least common standard so that older versions of Office can read them. That is if we write in 2010 format, 2003 application will ignore bits that they don't recognize such as the string percent value being discussed in the user list.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Beeker [mailto:kiwiwings@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 6:04 PM
To: POI Developers List <de...@poi.apache.org>
Subject: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
Hi,
as we have a discussion on the user list - how about upgrading to OOXML v3? (see bug #56205)
Andi
PS: I'm still busy with removing OPOIFS ... but I think I could move this one in ...
RE: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
Posted by Alain FAGOT BÉAREZ <ab...@for-scala.it>.
As far as I understand, this will only generate the CT* and ST* classes for the complete OOXML jar. But the ooxml-lite will not be affected until we write tests that use the new classes.
I can only see one benefit for those who like Greg depend on some features not yet wrapped in org.apache.poi API: where they have access to the CT* object from the higher level API, they can start with low level tweaking.
I still miss the down side of the upgrade.
Best regards,
Alain
Gesendet mit BlueMail
-------- Originale Nachricht --------
Von: "Murphy, Mark" <mu...@metalexmfg.com>
Gesendet: Fri Aug 17 09:13:33 GMT-03:00 2018
An: 'POI Developers List' <de...@poi.apache.org>
Betreff: RE: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
This is fine for reading documents which conform to the newer standards, but we should always make sure that on write we conform to the least common standard so that older versions of Office can read them. That is if we write in 2010 format, 2003 application will ignore bits that they don't recognize such as the string percent value being discussed in the user list.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Beeker [mailto:kiwiwings@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 6:04 PM
To: POI Developers List <de...@poi.apache.org>
Subject: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
Hi,
as we have a discussion on the user list - how about upgrading to OOXML v3? (see bug #56205)
Andi
PS: I'm still busy with removing OPOIFS ... but I think I could move this one in ...
RE: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
Posted by "Murphy, Mark" <mu...@metalexmfg.com>.
This is fine for reading documents which conform to the newer standards, but we should always make sure that on write we conform to the least common standard so that older versions of Office can read them. That is if we write in 2010 format, 2003 application will ignore bits that they don't recognize such as the string percent value being discussed in the user list.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Beeker [mailto:kiwiwings@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 6:04 PM
To: POI Developers List <de...@poi.apache.org>
Subject: Upgrade OOXML schema to 3rd edition?
Hi,
as we have a discussion on the user list - how about upgrading to OOXML v3? (see bug #56205)
Andi
PS: I'm still busy with removing OPOIFS ... but I think I could move this one in ...