Re: [office] Re: [office-comment] Further comment on ODF_1.0_Errata_draft_3

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Dennis,

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> It seems to me that the source of ambiguity and possible implementer
> confusion is removed by deleting the parenthetical observation if it is
> clear that the syntactically-allowed and the semantically-allowed values are
> coextensive.  (I, for one, have my doubts about negative "physical lengths"
> especially when "magnitude" is used in the explanation.).  Maybe it is
> better to remove the parenthetical remark and add the statement "Note that
> negative lengths are allowed.  Compare with nonNegativeLength and
> positiveLength." although I would love to know how negative lengths are
> treated (and I am not going to go looking at this point, trusting that the
> definition of attributes having this kind of value are sufficiently
> precise).
>
> I agree that the schemata given for lengths in the ODF schema are definitive
> with regard to the syntax (but notice that the non-zero constraint for
> positiveLength is expressed in a comment, not in the pattern.
>
>   
Well, but in addition to the reference to XSL 1.0, 5.9.11, the
definition of length in the schema rather clearly allows zero as a value.

Whether that is a good idea in all cases or not I can't say.

Even though I don't consider it to be a "defect," I would in a future
version re-cast the definitions as "like" strikes me as a very vague
term to use in a standard. Either define it or leave it alone.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200809/msg00023.html
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 06:49
> To: office-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [office-comment] Further comment on ODF_1.0_Errata_draft_3 
>
> First, I am happy with the way that the errata has been 
> prepared.
>
> I will review the content, but here is a comment.
>
>   
>> N0492:74 “Is zero allowed as a length in Chap 10? "A (positive or
>> negative) physical length" (page 691) appears to disallow zero.”
>>
>> Rejected, not a defect. The expression syntax referenced from this 
>> definition, XSL 1.0, 5.9.11, clearly allows zero.
>>     
>
> I would argue that this is a defect, since zero is neither postive 
> nor negative.  People use the phrase "non-negative integer" precisely 
> because of this reason.
>
> Cheers,
>
>   

-- 
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)