Re: Spreadsheet Formula Conformance - Please Not Now

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 02/07/2009 
01:14:16 PM:

> Whoa!
> 
> I just received an off-list note pointing out that Iteration 9 of the
> Conformance Proposal (in version 8 of the document,
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00058.html>) 
inserts
> normative language about table:formula.  I missed that addition beyond 
what
> we have seen in previous versions of the proposal.  (I wasn't looking 
for
> it, since we haven't been discussing spreadsheets.)
> 
> I strongly recommend that we subdivide the table:formula conformance
> proposal out of the overall Conformance Proposal.  I think it is better 
to
> handle this when we know what conformance clauses in the OpenFormula
> document we are appealing to, and what their names are. 
> 


We need somehow to formally invoke the various "parts" of ODF 1.2 and how 
the conformance of the parts related to the conformance of the whole. This 
is similar to invoking an external normative reference, e.g., we say that 
a conformant ODF 1.2 document must be well-formed, as defined by W3C's XML 
standard.  Similarly, we need to connect the dots with regards to formula 
and package conformance.  We should at least have some boilerplate 
language that connects Part I with the other two parts in terms of 
conformance.  If we have a formula and a package part and don't invoke 
them from the main part's conformance clause, then these other parts mean 
absolutely nothing.

Remember, nothing is approved until we have our final vote to make any 
Draft into a Committee Specification, and even then we are able to change 
things in response to public comments before sending the CS on for OASIS 
membership approval.  Until then we'll need to do some bootstrapping, 
since the parts are progressing at different rates. 

-Rob