OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[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

  * 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


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 


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]