[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Supplemental on conformance for documents
Greetings! After sleeping on it for a while, I think I hit everywhere but on the actual problem in my last post. ;-) The problem with the current formula draft is that it *only* talks about application conformance. What it needed is a separate conformance clause that gathers up the "portable" document requirements up into a document conformance clause. Written with the understanding that a document only ever exhibits syntactic conformance to openFormula. That is to say that a document that claims conformance up to the "medium" group, will not contain any use of the BITRSHIFT function (in the large group). Another point that I think we will need to watch for in a document conformance clause is to avoid reference to the semantics of any openFormula expression. Semantics appear only as a side-effect of processing and by definition, document conformance to openFormula does not involve processing. In other words, from the standpoint of a document, either strings that appear within it conform to the syntax defined by openFormula or not. I think that is important in part because it frees openFormula to define what conforming to the semantics of openFormula means and does not leave room for other, supplemental definitions of those semantics. Hope everyone is having a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]