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] Portable "documents"


To reduce the amount of "wading," ;-), yes, I am going to try to do 
Michael's steps one and two in parallel.

Not so much an attempt to change the text as to untangle it so we can 
make incremental decisions about what it should say.

Thanks for the reminder on "expression" but I am not terribly fond of 
global save/replace until I have a text that cleanly uses a uniform 
terminology. Even then I am reluctant save for things like double commas 
and space before a period.

I am creating a "PortabilityNote" style for all the portability notes 
which will enable us to search for them by style. As we resolve them, 
they will become subject to other styles, true notes, normative text, 
etc. Should make tracking a little bit easier.

Hope you are having a great week!


Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
> On Wednesday, 2009-12-16 09:55:48 -0500, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>> Err, so if it is possible to re-phrase a "portable document" statement  
>> as would be the case for minimum integer size (I like that example by  
>> the way) that would no longer be a note but a normative requirement:
>> evaluators shall support integers up to (some size). Evaluators may  
>> support integers in excess of (some size).
>> Making conformance a matter of supporting the minimal amount. Supporting  
>> the larger amount is also conformance because it includes the lesser  
>> amount.
>> The question then becomes what do we require, if anything, of  
>> applications that support larger amounts? Are those implementation  
>> dependent or defined?
> There is no general answer. This may have to be decided on a case by
> case basis. The example of integer sizes is nice, but mostly isn't
> applicable to the cases where we talk of portable documents.
>> Perhaps it will be easier to reach a consensus or at least move in that  
>> direction with the first couple of steps that you suggest above. Some of  
>> the "portability" issues are likely to attract near universal consent,  
>> like integer size. It may help us move more quickly than debating  
>> "portability" in abstract.
>> Unless Eike needs the text back to enter more of his technical  
>> corrections,
> I can do them later, working off the list of issues with status
> Resolved, which will hopefully increase..
>> I will start working on it along these lines. Will try to  
>> upload a rough version by next Monday so everyone can see the  
>> preliminary results.
> So that would include steps 1 and 2 of Michael's suggestions? As I wrote
> in my previous mail, replacing "document" with "expression" sometimes
> may be a bit precarious. Well, we'll see how that will turn out.
>   Eike

Patrick Durusau
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]