[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Portable "documents"
Greetings! Apologies but I will be missing today's formula call. I have more comments I will be filing on various formula definitions but those are mostly questions of being more explicit about processing assumptions. Such as coupon periods being counted backwards from the maturity date. I am sure that is a common assumption among those in the finance industry, the problem is that we are writing a standard that has to make every step explicit. My major concern at present is what to do with the notion of "portable documents." First, understand that my role is really to help the formula SC and the ODF TC to say what they want to say. I may or may not agree and will argue for my position but ultimately, my task is one of expressing the committee's view in standards prose. So, I really don't have a personal stake in whatever is decided on "portable documents" but I can tell you its current state in the draft does not pass muster as being in standards prose. Second, in order to fix the current difficulty, I really need to have the formula SC and ultimately the ODF TC agree on what is meant by "portable document." To illustrate, I think Rob's initial suggestion of thinking of conformance as being divided between expressions and evaluators provides part of the superstructure I need to parse out the various threads of shall, may, required (sic), etc. in the current draft. However, I understand "portable document" to cut across whatever conformance classes (I assume for example, large group conformance for expressions includes supporting the syntax of all fo the large group plus the lesser groups, but that medium group conformance for expressions is something less than that), but is not itself a conformance class. Yes? One aspect of the editorial work, once the "portable document" issue (and whatever it should be called) is decided, will be how to best present that information for a standard. I certainly think it should be captured but if it isn't normative behavior, that pushes in the direction of a non-normative annex. Which would have the additional advantage of centralizing all the information that developers or even users would need when striving for or evaluating what is possible with a "portable document." As it stands now, they would have to search the entire document to piece together a (hopefully) coherent and consistent picture of what constitutes a "portable document." I think once we have a common agreement on conformance classes being composed of expressions and evaluators (with the details on those yet to be decided) and on the treatment of "portable documents," I should have enough to start restructuring the prose along those lines. Untangling those lines is something that I would prefer to do once and only once so some direction on what to do about "portable document" would be greatly appreciated. Hope everyone is having a great week! Patrick PS: I will be mostly online throughout the holiday season. Should anyone have some free time or simply need a break from relatives, I will probably be posting/responding to emails on the formula draft. PPS: I have continued to edit the current draft, minor editorial stuff but I would prefer to not lose it. Let me know if I need to post another version for others to take over the editing pen. -- Patrick Durusau email@example.com 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)