OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Chart types (ODF all versions)

Dear all,

18.15.1 enumerates a number of "pre-defined chart types".

In all cases these are described with a few lines of text. The
descriptions are often sloppily worded and circular, depending on other
chart type descriptions.

As such, they are inadequate as a basis for any implementation, let
alone for implementations that aspire to interoperability.

So for example, for "surface charts" we are told just:

The values of multiple <chart:series> (marked as being of type
chart:surface) are interpreted as a 'altitude' at a specific grid
location. The graph may visualize these using colors for height
intervals, creating color bands similar to geographical maps.

Is it really though that invoking "altitude" (in quotation marks) and
mentioning "color bands similar to geographical maps" is sufficient for
_any_ kind of technical specification, let alone a standard?

The text should be corrected/expanded to provide implementers with
sufficient information to implement such features without recourse to
reverse-engineering existing applications. Many of these chart types
probably require several pages of description, helpfully backed up with

Alternatively, if it is the contention of the TC that this terminology
is well-defined in other standards, then reference these instead.

- Alex.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]