[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Spreadsheet Formula Conformance - Please Not Now
Whoa! I just received an off-list note pointing out that Iteration 9 of the Conformance Proposal (in version 8 of the document, <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00058.html>) inserts normative language about table:formula. I missed that addition beyond what we have seen in previous versions of the proposal. (I wasn't looking for it, since we haven't been discussing spreadsheets.) I strongly recommend that we subdivide the table:formula conformance proposal out of the overall Conformance Proposal. I think it is better to handle this when we know what conformance clauses in the OpenFormula document we are appealing to, and what their names are. - Dennis PS: I now find it odd that metadata extensions are now moved outside of the definition of conforming document, but arbitrary additions to <style:*-properties> are still allowed in conforming documents. I have no recommendation about that, just raising one eyebrow. FURTHER ANALYSIS: The statement in the 9th iteration (makes an addition to section 10.8.2: "Within conforming spreadsheet documents, the namespsace prefix shall be vound to the namespace urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:of:1.2, and the formula shall be a conforming OpenDocument formula as defined by the OpenDocument specification part 2: Formulas." (I'm not sure where the typos come from. I downloaded the document twice but the problem seems to be in the stored document.) The reference to section 10.8.2 is incorrect for ODF 1.2. The correct reference in draft 8 of Part 1 is to secction 18.1016. The full text would then start out with something like The table:formula attribute specifies a formula for a table cell. 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. Within conforming spreadsheet documents, the namespace prefix shall appear and shall be bound to the namespace urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:of:1.2. The formula shall be a conforming OpenDocument formula as defined by the OpenDocument specification part 2: Formulas. Typically, the formula itself begins with an equal (=) sign and can include the following components: (I separated the normative statements to support the practice of having different normative statements be separate for cross-reference and tying to conformance targets.) There are other defects with this revision (which is also inconsistent along with giving standing to a "conforming spreadsheet document" as much as I think there is indeed such a thing), and I think that we should not attempt to piggy-back reconciliation of the intended restriction as part of the Conformance Proposal. -----Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00088.html Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 08:39 To: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8 The OpenFormula and Packaging parts are still being edited. Once we get the draft of the core part done, we'll undoubtedly have a conformance discussion relative to each of the other parts as well, since each part can define its own conformance requirements. But I would expect OpenFormula to feature prominently as a requirement. That is why it was created. I think the feedback on ODF 1.0 not having a defined formula language was unequivocal. [ ... ] "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 02/06/2009 09:37:33 PM: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00084.html > 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 [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]