Unclear message when the mimetype has extra fields

[DavidBruant]

I created this file in a way that the mimetype file has extra fields

Now, i did it on purpose, but the first time it was by mistake because i was new to both the odf and zip format

When using the validator, i get the following message:

yo.odt/mimetype: Error: There shall be no extra field for the 'mimetype' file of ODF package 'yo.odt'!

this message helped me understand that there was a problem,
but the message did not help me understand the problem
(and it helped me on how to fix it only after i understood the problem)

I think this error message should mention that there is a problem with the zip entry. Maybe something along the lines of:

Error: There shall be no extra field for the 'mimetype' zip entry of ODF package 'yo.odt'!

Also, optionnally, i think it would be amazing if the error message linked to the part of the spec that requires this. In this case:
https://oasis-tcs.github.io/odf-tc/odf1.3/content.odf13-packages.html#__RefHeading__752809_826425813

I haven't taken the time to look into it yet, but i'm happy to contribute the error message change if there is agreement that it's a good idea

[svanteschubert]

@DavidBruant
Allow me to try to teach you fishing instead of providing you the fish! ;-)

Background

The blueprint of the LibreOffice file format ODF is its specification.
Our ODF Toolkit validator is just testing an ODF document against the ODF specification.
There are different parts of the ODF specification for

1. The ODF Package
2. The ODF XML
3. The ODF Formula (usually used in spreadsheets)

If a document/software is aligned to the requirements of the specification, it is conformant, like
https://docs.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument/v1.3/os/part2-packages/OpenDocument-v1.3-os-part2-packages.html#a_2_2_Package_Conformance

The latest specification of ODF 1.3 can be found here:
https://docs.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument/v1.3/os/
The package, which the manifest is a part of, has its own specification:
https://docs.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument/v1.3/os/part2-packages/OpenDocument-v1.3-os-part2-packages.html

The latest ODF specification of ODF 1.4 has not been published as a standard:
https://docs.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument/v1.4/OpenDocument-v1.4-part2-packages.html

There are even HTML representations of the RelaxNG XML grammar files for ODF 1.3 XML
https://docs.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument/v1.3/os/schemas/
Like here for the package format
https://docs.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument/v1.3/os/schemas/OpenDocument-v1.3-manifest-schema-rng.html

Problem Solution

In the best case, the specification would have an error code & text for every possible error type, which is part of the standard and could be translated into every language. That is not the case, therefore we (the validator) needs to be updated, but can the specification be updated as well?

The requirements that you stumbled over are in the ODF Package specification as follows:
https://docs.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument/v1.3/os/part2-packages/OpenDocument-v1.3-os-part2-packages.html#a_3_3_MIME_Media_Type

In the standardization (and likely everybody else), if you do not like something, please come up with a change suggestion.
What would be a better error message? After we agreed/reviewed this, I would like to ask you to provide a pull request.
As Michael and I are quite overloaded these days, we take the time to teach, review and assist whenever possible! :-)

Looking forward to your further proposals!
Svante

[svanteschubert]

PS: If it is a problem with the ZIP file, the ODF Package spec states: "It shall be a Zip file, as defined by [ZIP]."
This would be rather out-of-scope of the ODF spec, and we might simply state, it is not a Zip file, as defined in
APPNOTE Version 6.2.0, http://www.pkware.com/support/application-note-archives, 2004

[DavidBruant]

hi @svanteschubert

i'm a bit confused by your answer

For context, i'm familiar with standardization as i participated to the html (on the whatwg side, not the W3C side) and ecmascript standards
and although i'm not familiar with the odf specification and community specifically, from what i can see, i feel the general process is the same

i'm grateful you shared the proper links because it's been confusing to me so far which webpages are the reference ones

---

in the context of this issue, i'm not aiming at changing the standard as i feel it's clear enough

however i did experience an ergonomics problem with the validator as i used it
and, in my initial message, i tried to suggest an improvement in the wording of the error for the purpose of helping people understand the errors in the files they try to validate (and this is possibly where i'm mistaken as you might not share this goal for the validator)

What would be a better error message?

This is the part that confuses me the most. In my initial message, i did propose a message i find better and i asked (i admit, indirectly) if you agreed that the wording was better for you too

My suggestion was:

Error: There shall be no extra field for the 'mimetype' zip entry of ODF package 'yo.odt'!

(which talks about "zip entry" rather than "file" because i feel it would have helped me at the time and i imagine it would help others)

After we agreed/reviewed this, I would like to ask you to provide a pull request.

Sure thing, what do you think of changing the error message to this one? Do you agree it is a worthwhile change?
If you do, i'm happy to send a pull request

I'm confused, because i feel we agree but i read that we don't

PS: If it is a problem with the ZIP file, the ODF Package spec states: "It shall be a Zip file, as defined by [ZIP]."
This would be rather out-of-scope of the ODF spec, and we might simply state, it is not a Zip file, as defined in
APPNOTE Version 6.2.0, http://www.pkware.com/support/application-note-archives, 2004

I don't understand this part (and also, where i am, the link http://www.pkware.com/support/application-note-archives redirects to the welcome page of the domain. Maybe the more recent link is: https://support.pkware.com/pkzip/application-note-archives ?)

---

you wrote that you're overloaded and i want to be respectful of your time
if you feel this exchange is a waste of your time, i apologize and it's ok to not respond any further

[svanteschubert]

@DavidBruant Ha! Not tested the link, it is broken (they should have redirected it)...
@mistmist As you were more deeply involved in the latest ZIP updates and also the maintainer of the validator, could you please take a look at the wording?
(Greetings from the OASIS UBL TC meeting from Luxembourg - currently walking on my other leg - the EU invoicing standard using UBL/CII XML)...