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] Conformance for documents? (resend)


Am 08.12.09 15:03, robert_weir@us.ibm.com schrieb:
> Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 12/08/2009 08:36:50 AM:
>> That's very helpful.
>> So you are saying that the language needs to be reformed to use 
>> expressions vs. evaluators?
> That is how I would do it.  The top-level task is to take the numerous 
> concepts and terms in the draft specification and rationalize them into 
> formal conformance targets, classes, levels, etc.  I've been pushing for 
> having two conformance targets: Expression and Evaluator.

It seems that the SC has reached consensus on this, but I'd anyway like
to mention that I agree that these are these are two reasonable
conformance targets.
>> That distinction makes sense to me but then what of all the "portable" 
>> document language in the current draft?
> I've thought about this and have some ideas, but I don't think we've 
> discussed or reached consensus on how to treat this formally.
> The concept of a "portable document" might be expressed:
> 1) As recommendations.  So convert portability requirements into should's.
> 2) As requirements.  So convert portability requirements into shall's.
> 3)As another conformance class: Portable OpenFormula Expression. 
> 4) Remove from the specification altogether and give it to the ODF 
> Interoperability and Conformance TC to turn into an OpenFormula 
> interoperability guidelines document.
> 5) Some combination of 1 and 4.
> The most direct mapping would probably be 3.  But if we do so, we need to 
> figure out how that interacts with the small, medium and large function 
> groups.  And we would really want to make sure that all 
> implementation-dependent behavior was resolved in the Portable conformance 
> class.  It would be unfortunate if the Portable class was merely "more 
> portable" but not fully portable.

I will share my thoughts on this in a reply to the mail Patrick send
this morning.

Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

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