Re: [office-formula] On "portability"

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Michael,

Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Am 09.12.09 18:22, Patrick Durusau schrieb:
>> Michael,
>>
>> OK, that helps.
>>
>> So in one view, the "portable" document comments are simply helpful 
>> observations for implementers/users and don't have an impact on the 
>> conformance clauses.
>>
>> Such observations could be gathered up in a non-normative annex. That 
>> would simplify the text in a number of cases.
>
> That is one possibility, but not necessarily the one I recommend. My
> proposal would be to convert the constrains for portable documents into
> minimum requirements for evaluators. But I'm not a formula expert. I
> therefore don't know if that works, or is a bad idea.
>
Well, I'm not a formula expert or have a fixed position on what should 
or should not be required by OpenFormula.

What I think is clear is that as written it isn't clear if being 
"portable" is a coherent set of requirements on evaluators or if it is a 
set of disconnected observations. My personal reading leans towards the 
second option but that may just be from the way it was written. It would 
certainly be possible to write the "portable" observations as a set of 
minimal requirements.

I really need some direction from the formula experts before I can even 
attempt a restatement that captures their intent in some standard's like 
prose.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)