office message

Subject: Re: [office] Another view on conformance?

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 08:30:09 +0000

2009/2/28  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:

>> Weak definition, weak test. Your choice.
>>
>
> The point is not the definition of random.

It is, seems this is an example  what the TC won't accept.
The spec is weak, hence not verifiable.

Correct one, you'll address the other.


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [office] Another view on conformance?
  - From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>