[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Re: [office-comment] Further comment on ODF_1.0_Errata_draft_3
Dennis, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Patrick, > > It seems to me that the source of ambiguity and possible implementer > confusion is removed by deleting the parenthetical observation if it is > clear that the syntactically-allowed and the semantically-allowed values are > coextensive. (I, for one, have my doubts about negative "physical lengths" > especially when "magnitude" is used in the explanation.). Maybe it is > better to remove the parenthetical remark and add the statement "Note that > negative lengths are allowed. Compare with nonNegativeLength and > positiveLength." although I would love to know how negative lengths are > treated (and I am not going to go looking at this point, trusting that the > definition of attributes having this kind of value are sufficiently > precise). > > I agree that the schemata given for lengths in the ODF schema are definitive > with regard to the syntax (but notice that the non-zero constraint for > positiveLength is expressed in a comment, not in the pattern. > > Well, but in addition to the reference to XSL 1.0, 5.9.11, the definition of length in the schema rather clearly allows zero as a value. Whether that is a good idea in all cases or not I can't say. Even though I don't consider it to be a "defect," I would in a future version re-cast the definitions as "like" strikes me as a very vague term to use in a standard. Either define it or leave it alone. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp] > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200809/msg00023.html > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 06:49 > To: office-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [office-comment] Further comment on ODF_1.0_Errata_draft_3 > > First, I am happy with the way that the errata has been > prepared. > > I will review the content, but here is a comment. > > >> N0492:74 “Is zero allowed as a length in Chap 10? "A (positive or >> negative) physical length" (page 691) appears to disallow zero.” >> >> Rejected, not a defect. The expression syntax referenced from this >> definition, XSL 1.0, 5.9.11, clearly allows zero. >> > > I would argue that this is a defect, since zero is neither postive > nor negative. People use the phrase "non-negative integer" precisely > because of this reason. > > Cheers, > > -- 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)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]