[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Re: Spreadsheet Formula Conformance - Please Not Now
Rob, I don't dispute the need to tie together the conformance interdependencies of the parts of the ODF 1.2 specification. I dispute the need to do that now using normative pretend language appealing to other normative pretend language that has not been written yet. I find this particular approach to "bootstrapping" makes us appear to be careless (or worse), leaving us with defects that we have to remember to watch over and deal with in future stages. I would rather not do that. Modifying the section on table:formula is unnecessary at this point, and it will require its own deliberation when the time comes. Attempting to address it now is wasted effort and a distraction, in my opinion. Also, the new-born (February 5) proposed addition isn't a sufficient way to establish the desired conformance and I don't think we should figure out how to repair that as part of the current proposal. I note these deficiencies: there being no schema for table:formula in anything like the usual sense, the addition being inconsistent with other parts of the same section, the statement mentioning a conformance target that does not exist in normative language of the very same conformance proposal, and asserting dependencies on normative provisions of the OpenFormula specification that do not exist at this point. That's in addition to (1) the addition instructions being incomplete and naming the wrong specification section along with (2) no consideration of the use of table:formula within <table:table> elements that are not descendants of an <office:spreadsheet> element. I think the modifications for connecting up and reconciling all of the conformance clauses should be done when those other conformance clauses are also in evidence and we can gather up their dependencies and implications to see what we are actually accomplishing. I think that will be substantial work and will require careful deliberation to achieve consensus. The mutual reconciliation can be worked out, "in conference" among the parts, as it were. I would very much prefer a highlighted placeholder over insertion of model language having no referents. That strikes me as the appropriate way to demonstrate care in bootstrapping. - Dennis PS: I applaud the OpenFormula SC for having ODF 1.2 Part 2 provide a spreadsheet formula specification that is not specific to ODF and is adaptable in other situations where standard spreadsheet formulas are desirable. It may therefore be necessary to do some work to profile OpenFormula with regard to table:formula in Part 1 (just as Part 2 currently makes some profiling demands on ODF 1.2 Part 1), keeping in mind the different opportunities for table:formula usage in an ODF Document. The normative language of OpenFormula will probably need to be adjusted so that the intended conformance for hosting in ODF 1.2 is easy to establish. Until we understand that reconciliation, I don't think we can say anything beyond providing highlighted notes with our non-normative expressions of intension. -----Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00095.html Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 09:41 To: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [office] Re: Spreadsheet Formula Conformance - Please Not Now http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00095.html "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 02/07/2009 01:14:16 PM: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00090.html [ ... ] > > 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. > We need somehow to formally invoke the various "parts" of ODF 1.2 and how the conformance of the parts related to the conformance of the whole. This is similar to invoking an external normative reference, e.g., we say that a conformant ODF 1.2 document must be well-formed, as defined by W3C's XML standard. Similarly, we need to connect the dots with regards to formula and package conformance. We should at least have some boilerplate language that connects Part I with the other two parts in terms of conformance. If we have a formula and a package part and don't invoke them from the main part's conformance clause, then these other parts mean absolutely nothing. Remember, nothing is approved until we have our final vote to make any Draft into a Committee Specification, and even then we are able to change things in response to public comments before sending the CS on for OASIS membership approval. Until then we'll need to do some bootstrapping, since the parts are progressing at different rates. -Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]