Re: [office-formula] Groups - OpenDocument-part2-draft18-editor-revision(OpenDocument-part2-draft18-editor-revision.odt) uploaded

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Eike,

Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Friday, 2010-01-29 21:22:26 +0000, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>
>   
>> Another draft of the OpenFormula document for your review!
>>     
>
> Could everyone please take a look and communicate objections, if any,
> until 2009-02-02 10:00 UTC? Thanks.
>
> Btw, Patrick, please don't use the "Add New Document" button to upload
> a new revision of a draft, instead use "Replace" for the "OpenDocument
> Formula Specification ..." document that currently has 77 revisions.
> This prevents a growing list of apparently different documents that in
> fact are only different revisions. Thanks.
>
>   
Ah, I had never noticed that option.

OK.
>   
>> 1) Evaluator (instead of application/implementation) language. (I did not
>> replace language in the test cases/notes or in the portable language
>> material that may be about to either go away or be re-worded anyway.)
>>     
>
> Would had been fine in the portable language material as well, so it
> doesn't get overlooked.
>
>   
We still need to decide what to do with the portable language.

One option would be to move it to a normative annex that treats 
instances of syntax. The no revision of the portable language speaking 
of documents would be necessary.
>> 2) A number of comments that have Office-* links embedded in the text.
>> Usually with suggested proposals for revision.
>>     
>
> Currently these are now part of the normative text. Making them "TODO"
> paragraphs might had been cleaner and easier to spot. Anyway, they are
> searchable as "Office-[0-9]+", we wave to keep in mind they have to be
> reviewed and removed.
>
>   
Perhaps.
>> 3) Extensive revisions/comments in chapters 3 and 4. I am still unhappy
>> with complex number and reference. 
>>     
>
> There may also be a problem with removing entire blocks of paragraphs
> and replacing them with nothing. I didn't check, but do we have any
> "empty cell" definition now, for example?
>
>   
Not every paragraph that was deleted merits replacement.
> Apart from that there's a problem with removing the word "typically".
> For example, a sentence like
>
> "A currency is a subtype of number which typically is displayed with
> a currency symbol."
>
> just said that. Removing typically there it suddenly becomes
> a definition "A currency is a subtype of number which is displayed with
> a currency symbol.", but that's not true, the actual display depends on
> the number format assigned to the cell. The same with Percentage,
> whether or not the number is multiplied by 100 and a percent sign is
> displayed is not defined by the type.
>
>   
Well, but the display of any subtype depends upon the number format 
assigned to the cell.

The issue with "typically" is that we don't say when currency with 
"typically" appear with a currency symbol and when it will not.

To say "typically" is vague.

If we want to say: "A currency is a subtype of number that may appear 
with or without a currency symbol or with other formatting depending 
upon the number format assigned to the cell where it appears."

That avoids the vagueness of  "typically" and doesn't leave any doubt as 
to the mechanism that is producing the difference in presentation.
>   
>> 5) I think I have caught all the must -> shall instances but need to make
>> sure they are all true shall cases. 
>>     
>
> Remark: all normative keywords (shall, should, ...) ought to have the
> predefined "ISO Keyword" character attribution.
>
>   
True.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick
>   Eike
>
>   

-- 
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)