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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-formula message

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

Subject: Re: [office-formula] Re: [office] Syntax Comments (Weir)

Hi David,

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 17:52:21 -0400, David A. Wheeler wrote:

> [... about heated discussion targeting namespace prefixes in attributes ...]
> Maybe we should just omit the namespace stuff from the BNF, and
> say that in text.  It's likely to confuse people if it's a SHOULD NOT 
> use, but
> it's in the BNF.

Ok, on this background +1

> >a Turkish transliteration. Vice versa, an application running in
> >a Turkish locale may convert a lowercase 'i' with dot to an uppercase
> >I with dot, and then would not match an intended IF(), for example. So
> >we might even have to impose yet another restriction that function names
> >are always to be converted to uppercase using an en-US transliteration.
> >Which of course does not fit with any UOF/ODF intentions.
> >  
> Well, standard function names are automatically translated to a single name
> when stored, no matter what is displayed.  For nonstandard names,
> the application itself would hopefully know how it encodes it.

Well, yes. Still, if we allow lowercase function names, the requirement
to transliterate them to uppercase using an en-US locale holds.
Everything else does not make sense.

> It is my intent to make all the shaded notes become hidden text (they'd 
> depend on a
> single variable, so they could be displayed and undisplayed easily), though
> still in the .odt file. The hidden text would not be considered part of the
> standard for voting purposes, but could be revealed whenever desired.  
> That way:
> 1. The annotations will NOT be considered part of the formal spec
> 2. We have an annotated version, trivially printed and shown
> 3. The annotations are more likely to be in sync with the spec

That's absolutely fine with me and the most logical and convenient way
to handle it, I just don't know how it fits the OASIS process to say
"ignore the hidden text when voting" ... let alone processes of other
standardization bodies like ISO. So we may have to be able to easily
produce a document without annotations. Just to keep in mind.


Automatic string conversions considered dangerous. They are the GOTO statements
of spreadsheets.  --Robert Weir on the OpenDocument formula subcommittee's list.

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