RE: [office-comment] CD01 -- 8.2.1 Referencing Table Cells

["Alex Brown" <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk>]

Dear all,

> However, it appears that a TC co-chair views the matter appearing
> before the last paragraph as establishing conformity requirements.
> <http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html>
> ("SP2's implementation of ODF spreadsheets does not, in fact, conform
> to the requirements of the ODF standard ...")

As the discussion between Rob and Dennis on Rob's latest blog entry shows, this whole conformance question is - at the least - highly debatable. I really can't see how any statement about it can be reasonably qualified by an "in fact".

I am glad to see that, in the latest 1.2 draft, Patrick has eliminated the "typically" (that I complained about earlier) from the table:formula description. That addresses one of the multiple sources of confusion on this issue and goes to show, I think, why (what might be seen as) "picky" complaints about wording are, in fact, really rather important. 

Will this fix be back-applied to ODF 1.1?

In fact will all these minor-but-important wording faults ("must", "similar to", etc.) be corrected for ODF 1.1? Or will it be necessary for defect reports to come in from the JTC 1 side to trigger errata/amendments for 1.1?

- Alex.