[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Suggestion from the ISO meeting in Seattle
I concur with Rob's analysis with regard to approved errata. Going forward, I recall seeing ISO annexes that provided cross-referenced enumerations of * all implementation-defined items (and these might include matters of SHOULD and MAY) * all conformance statements with identification of the party responsible for satisfaction of the condition - e.g., format, consumer, producer, and other cases. The matter of responsibility might apply to implementaton-defined too, particularly with respect to SHOULD and MAY, but I am not sure I've seen that covered. I don't think CAN has to be dealt with because it is a statement of fact, not permission or requirement, as far as I can tell. The OASIS recommendations for conformance provisions in specifications suggest that something along these lines is also desirable. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 05:57 To: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office] Suggestion from the ISO meeting in Seattle Patrick, I don't think we can mark something as "implementation-defined" in Approved Errata, since that would be adding a new requirement (a requirement for the implementation to specify its behavior) on existing implementations, something we are not permitted to do under OASIS rules. However, "implementation-dependent" would be fine. Of course, in ODF 1.2 we are free to say "implementation-defined" if we want. -Rob Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 09/24/2009 07:49:17 AM: [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]