[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Restoring examples in OpenFormula spec
Patrick Durusau: > This is where I disagree, not that examples aren't helpful but that they > are necessary in the normative text. They wouldn't be normative, they'd be adjacent to the normative text. > There may be a very limited number > of cases and the directives so concede where examples may be necessary. > > HOWEVER, it is clear from your response that you are taking this as an > opportunity to insist on having examples for every function. I really > don't think anyone needs an example of the "+" function, for example. Or > a large number of others, assuming that we do our job correctly as a > committee and write really good prose and/or notation. Ah, so THAT'S the issue, you don't want to see them with EVERY function. We _could_ expose examples on only selected functions. The trick would be deciding which ones, then. Sadly, making that decision on a case-by-case basis would obviously take additional time; I don't know if we have that kind of time. I want the spec to be superior to OXML in every way (a very low bar indeed). The only thing I can see that's better about OXML is that it includes examples. We HAVE them, but we have removed ours from view, because we believed that ISO wouldn't accept a spec with lots of examples. Clearly that's not so. Indeed, why _is_ OXML acceptable? It includes function examples. > The point being that we could easily see a 1,500 to 2,000 page ODF > standard that is mostly *non-normative* examples. It's not too bad with the OpenFormula spec; even displaying all hidden text it's not THAT many pages. --- David A. Wheeler
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]