[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8
Bob, I can't find anything that pertains to limitations on formulas table:formula with regard to conforming documents. Is there some proposal separate from version 8 of the Conformance Proposal, the ODF 1.2 Part 1 draft 8, and the OpenFormula 2008-12-21 draft? Requiring prefixes doesn't seem to prevent extensions at all, since the namespace is not required to be one defined by the OpenDocument or OpenFormula specifications. This seems to be clearly recognized in ODF 1.0/IS 26300/ODF 1.1 and the current drafts of ODF 1.2 and OpenFormula. (All implemented ODF spreadsheet documents I have ever seen use a "foreign" namespace for the prefix in table:formula values. That's one reason I asked if you were granting variances to products, at least until OpenFormula shows up in implementations.) Please take another look or point me to the proposal you mean. - Dennis PS: I agree about RDF extensibility not having anything to do with extensions to ODF (although some processor might do something aggressive, it appears to me that the ODF Document stands on its own no matter what the RDF is). PPS: Where do you place the <style:*-properties> extensions in your requirement for some rigid conformance. In or out? - - - - - - - - - BACKGROUND ANALYSIS Here's all I was able to find: In Part 1, draft8, there is 18.1016 table:formula ... "Formulas allow calculations to be performed within table cells. Every formula should begin with a namespace prefix specifying the syntax and semantics used within the formula. Typically, the formula itself begins with an equal (=) sign and can include the following components: ... " I don't find anything normative here, other than a namespace prefix be included. In the OpenFormula 2008-12-21 draft, there is the following related remark under namespaces (keeping in mind that OpenFormula is meant to be embedded in other "host languages" than ODF): 1.3 Namespace This specification defines a particular formula syntax that is often contained in XML attributes. In this case, the attribute value will typically begin with =; normally the namespace will not be referred to. However, it is legal to specifically identify a namespace, and to include a namespace prefix in the attribute. If this occurs, the of: is typically used, and the following namespace is used: urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:openformula:1.0 For more information about XML namespaces, please refer to the Namespaces in XML specification [xml-names]. Implementations may also accept formula syntaxes other than OpenFormula, and they may accept various compatible extensions to the default OpenFormula syntax. I don't see anything that even suggests OpenFormula becoming the default in ODF (in the case of there being no prefix), but I assume that is an oversight in the ODF 1.2 Part 1 draft 8. 2. Conformance This is a lengthy section. It provides for explicitly extensions in formulas, restrictions to specific groups, and a wide variety of other variations. With regard to OpenFormula and only OpenFormula, I think this paragraph is pretty clear: Applications may implement subsets or supersets of this OpenFormula specification. An application shall only claim to conform to a given function, operator, or group if the application completely meets all of its requirements as defined in this specification. Applications may (and typically do) implement additional functions beyond those defined in this specification. Applications may support additional formula syntax, additional operations, additional optional parameters for functions, or make certain function parameters optional when they are required by this specification. Applications should clearly document their extensions in their user documentation, both online and paper, in a manner so users would be likely to be aware when they are using a non-standard extension. This specification's text is written as a description of the requirements of an implementing application. However, documents (data files) containing formulas can also comply or fail to comply with this specification. Documents with OpenFormula formulas may use subsets or supersets of OpenFormula. A document may reference a nonstandard function by name, or depend on implementation-defined behavior, or on semantics not guaranteed by this specification. Thus, this specification discusses what is required for a document to assert that it is a *portable*document*. A portable document shall only depend on the capabilities defined in this specification, and shall not depend on undefined or implementation-defined behavior. A portable document shall only claim to conform to a given group if the document only depends on the capabilities of the given group. I'm not sure where claims of portability and the groups claimed to be supported are announced. Whatever the merits of this and the remaining conformance clauses, I don't see how there is a prohibition of extensions in conforming documents with regard to use of table:formula namespace prefixes nor in any of the provisions of the OpenFormula specification. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Jolliffe [mailto:bobjolliffe@gmail.com] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00080.html Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 16:54 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: Michael.Brauer@sun.com; OpenDocument Mailing List Subject: Re: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8 Dennis 2009/2/6 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00078.html > Out of curiosity, if strict were reserved for the one that means with no > extensions, what do you see that as leaving out? > > I would think that the <style:*-properties> and metadata foreign elements > are handled in the outer level either way (although I don't think the > recommendation as to their preservation is wise.) > > Do you agree with Rob that this would exclude the RDF metadata? I can't see > why. I don't think RDF's provision for arbitrary vocabulary is thought by > anyone to be an extension of RDF. This notion of extensibility does not > strike me as an extension of RDF, it is the very nature of RDF. > > Or would strict conformance exclude the use of table:formula values with > prefixes from QNames of foreign namespaces? Similarly for scripts? If > pressed, I would have to agree that those are extension points built into > the specification. I'm not sure which way someone who wants to have a > strict ODF document would decide on this one. > > If you say that is the problem, I will abandon my preference of "strict > conformance" as ours to define. > > Bob? > > - Dennis > > PS: Bob, I add you to these questions because I don't know, for the single > level that is the only one you are interested in, whether the things I'm > asking about are included or excluded in your view. Do you currently grant > variances for certain namespaces or processors or do you regard the rules > for RDF metadata and for the QName prefixes in table:formula and script > codes as allowing permissible extensions, along with the > <style:*-properties> and the metadata ones. My understanding is that the rules for RDF metadata would permit "extensions". Though I'm not sure if I would say it is a good idea to think of it as generic extension mechanism. The current proposal regarding prefixes in table:formula seems to quite clearly not allow extensions in conforming documents. For a conforming document this is as it should be, to avoid incompatibility between spreadsheet applications. Regards Bob [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]