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] Table:formula attribute and the Formula data type


I agree that implementation-defined case is not very useful since interoperability, if any, depends on an out-of-band agreement and some out-of-band way of knowing the agreement applies.  However, omission of a namespace is an existing case from ODF 1.1 and earlier where the namespace prefix is optional and there is no clear instruction about what omission means in those specifications.  The normal interpretation for the absence of a default in case like this is to view the default as being left implementation-defined.

Although 1.2 could change the no-prefix default to OpenFormula, I think the safest route might be to deprecate the omission of a namespace prefix for all (conformant and extended) ODF 1.2 documents and then do what [D4.4] does in requiring that there be a prefix and that it be bound to the namespace for OpenFormula in the stricter case of Conforming Open Document Spreadsheet Documents.

I have no idea whether it matters for any implementations, but requiring the prefix and deprecating its absence can be done without having to know.

Like you, I think there is no value in undefined no-prefix cases. I worry more about making it well-defined in 1.2 when it is not in earlier specifications. Although that might be harmless, it is assuredly harmless to go the prefix-required route. 

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas J. Guelzow [mailto:aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 17:15
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; ericpa@exchange.microsoft.com; office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org; office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office-formula] Table:formula attribute and the Formula data type

On 5/13/2009, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
[ ... ]
>Alternatively, for historical reasons, one might want to leave omission of a prefix to mean "implementation-defined" and have a prefix be mandatory for any OpenFormula table:formula expression in ODF 1.2.  Whether at least one "=" is always required (in the OpenFormula case) is something that needs to be nailed down.

I don't think taht "implementation defined" works in this circumstance
since 2 implementations are involved: Whoever wrote the file and whoever
reads it. With a prefix one can at least tell where the formula comes
from (even if one doesn't understand the formula). Without a prefix
(unless that case defaults to something well defined), the formula is
just a random string since no application can even assume that it is its


[ ... ]

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