Re: [office] Typos and details inOpenDocument-v1.2-cd05-part1-editor-revision_04.odt

[Eike Rathke <eike.rathke@oracle.com>]

Hi Patrick,

On Wednesday, 2010-11-10 21:38:41 -0500, Patrick Durusau wrote:

> > * 19.358 number:rfc-language-tag
> > 
> >   The replacing paragraph says "Producers may add support for consumers
> >   that don't support the number:rfc-language-tag attribute by specifying
> >   number:language, number:script and number:country attributes with
> >   values that are implementation-dependent."
> >   
> >   That is quite contradictionary to the original and now deleted
> >   intention "If a fall-back is provided for consumers that do not
> >   support the number:rfc-language-tag attribute, producers should add
> >   number:language, number:script and number:country attributes whose
> >   values are as close as possible to the actual value of the
> >   number:rfc-language-tag attribute. The values of these attributes
> >   shall not contradict to the value of the number:rfc-language-tag
> >   attribute."
> > 
> 
> Why is this contradictory? Same question for the next one. 

Contradictory in the sense that replacing "as close as possible" with
"implementation-dependent" does not get the original intention across.

> Any "close as possible" setting is going to be implementation dependent.
> Yes?

Only a little ;-)  Yes, the actual "close as possible" values may be
implementation-dependent, but in the context of BCP47/RFC5646 and ISO
639 and ISO 15924 and ISO 3166, the *:language, *:script and *:country
attributes shall not contradict the *:rfc-language-tag value. For
example, a *:rfc-language-tag='eu-biscayan-ES' could have accompanying
*:language='eu' and *:country='ES' attributes, but *:language='en' and
*:country='US' would not match at all and be contradictory.

> >   Suggested correction:
> > 
> >   "Producers may add support for consumers that don't support the
> >   number:rfc-language-tag attribute by specifying number:language,
> >   number:script and number:country attributes with values as close as
> >   possible to the actual value of the number:rfc-language-tag
> >   attribute. Producers shall not use values for these attributes that
> >   contradict the value of the table:rfc-language-tag attribute."

If we need the "implementation-dependent" wording somewhere I suggest

"Producers may add support for consumers that don't support the
number:rfc-language-tag attribute by specifying implementation-dependent
number:language, number:script and number:country attributes with values
as close as possible to the actual value of the number:rfc-language-tag
attribute. Producers shall not use values for these attributes that
contradict the value of the table:rfc-language-tag attribute."


> > * 19.598 table:condition
> > 
> >   "is-true-formula(expression): true if evaluation of the expression
> >   yields a value that converts to logical type value true in the
> >   semantics for the expression; false otherwise."
> >   is added to both, "The defined conditions are:" and "The defined value
> >   conditions are:"
> > 
> >   Having is-true-formula(expression) listed under both, defined
> >   conditions and defined value conditions, does not make sense. There is
> >   no difference. I propose to remove it from the defined value
> >   conditions and list it only under defined conditions. See
> >   http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-3493
> >   which I set to "edits rejected".
> 
> OK, I checked the issue, are we ok on this one?

Yes, keep it as is, I overlooked the condition context. I reset the
issue to Applied.

  Eike

-- 
 Oracle Open Office Calc core developer and i18n transpositionizer.
 Signature key 0x87F8D412 : 2F58 5236 DB02 F335 8304  7D6C 65C9 F9B5 87F8 D412
 OpenOffice.org Engineering at Oracle: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
 --
 Please note that my @sun.com accounts are phasing out, use the
 eike.rathke@oracle.com address instead. Thanks.

PGP signature