Skip to content

Format xml relations ships #2212

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
dansleboby opened this issue Jul 6, 2021 · 5 comments
Closed

Format xml relations ships #2212

dansleboby opened this issue Jul 6, 2021 · 5 comments

Comments

@dansleboby
Copy link

dansleboby commented Jul 6, 2021

case 'http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships/officeDocument':

Hi I have a document with this ref instand: http://purl.oclc.org/ooxml/officeDocument/relationships/officeDocument and it broke the script and I don't know why

#1718 (comment)

Thanks

@dansleboby
Copy link
Author

dansleboby commented Jul 6, 2021

https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/050e791a-c59b-45b6-80b5-e5798ee47b7a/why-the-relationship-type-diff-between-ecma376-and-iso-29500?forum=os_binaryfile

The move to purl URIs was part of the ISO/IEC adoption of the ECMA standard. Note that ECMA-376 1st edition (pre-ISO/IEC) and 2nd edition (same as ISO/IEC 29500:2008) use schemas.openxmlformats.org. As of ECMA-376 3rd edition (29500:2011), strict elements (Part 1) use purl.oclc.org and transitional elements (Part 4) use schemas.openxmlformats.org. Amendment 1 to 29500:2008 changed the uses of schemas.openxmlformats.org to purl.oclc.org, so it first showed up in the consolidated reprint 29500:2011 (which is just 29500:2008 plus corrigendum 1 and amendment 1).

@MarkBaker
Copy link
Member

MarkBaker commented Jul 6, 2021

Were busy working on improving the namespace handling at the moment. Rather than checking the code for the 1.18.0 release, check the master branch to see what changes have been made since then... and test your file against the master branch to see if it works, because we have precious few "real world" examples to test against

@dansleboby
Copy link
Author

Yes working great from master, an ETA for stable release?

@MarkBaker
Copy link
Member

This month.... but it' a fairly major internal change, and "high risk" so need a lot more testing

@oleibman
Copy link
Collaborator

oleibman commented Dec 4, 2021

Closing. Fixed in release 19/20.

@oleibman oleibman closed this as completed Dec 4, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants