office-formula message

Subject: RE: [office-formula] BITAND

From: Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>
To: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:16:56 -0700

On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 11:04 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> (In this regard, I
> emphatically disagree with the PS in the note from Andreas, and I believe
> the OASIS conformance guidelines are also in conflict with that PS.)

Dennis,
could you explain to me what you see as the difference between the
following two statements (in the context of the OpenFormula
specification):

1) To comply with this specification, an implementation *shall* support
parameters of at least 48 bits.

2) An implementation *shall* support parameters of at least 48 bits.

Andreas

-- 
Andreas J. Guelzow
Concordia University College of Alberta

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [office-formula] BITAND
  - From: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>
- RE: [office-formula] BITAND
  - From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
- RE: [office-formula] BITAND - Normative Statements
  - From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

References:
- BITAND
  - From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
- Re: [office-formula] BITAND
  - From: "Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow@pyrshep.ca>
- RE: [office-formula] BITAND
  - From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>