[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: Michael Brauer, regarding "Proposal: Identifying nonstandardfunctions"
Michael Brauer said the following in the "office" list. I'm forwarding it here to the "office-formula" list, so that those who are only on the "office-formula" list will see it. It's about how to identify application-specific functions. ----- Forwarded Message ----- I'm replying to the office list rather than the office-formula list, because I'm not a member of the Formula SC. email@example.com wrote: > > I don't think we want to get into the registrar business. A vendor can > figure out how to create a unique function name if they want to create > such an extension, whether 123.DAYS, or 123_DAYS, or whatever. If we > want to recommend a mechanism, then that's fine. But creating a > registry is overkill. As you said, the number of applications is > relatively small. I agree to Rob. I think a registration business is outside the scope of the OpenDocument TC, and I believe also outside the scope of OASIS. I further think we have to differ between using XML namespaces for the identification of extensions/implementations, and the use of [prefix]:[local-name] syntax of XML namespaces. If it is not possible or reasonable to use a colon within formulas (and I have no doubts that this is the case), then I think it is better to use a dot instead and to keep the other semantics of XML namespaces, then it would be to define a new extension/identification method. Michael ----- End Forwarded Message -----