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-formula] BITAND - Normative Statements

[cc: to main list because this matters very much there too.]


It is my understanding that neither statement satisfies the OASIS guidelines
for conformance and normative statements.

That is, unless "implementation" is an identified conformance target in the
Conformance section of the specification.  (Apparently, "implementation"
does not imply "conformant implementation" in OASIS parlance, and
"conformant implementation" is not a conformance target unless such is
defined in the conformance section.) 

I don't believe that is the case at this time.  Now, it is also the case
that the ODF 1.2 draft has not been moved to the latest template with
inclusion of a conformance section that's been reviewed to satisfy the
current OASIS guidelines.

For those who are curious what that entails, I recommend review of the
following document:
.  Perhaps the most important part of the guideline document is the
checklist in the final section.  For me, this makes the intent and the
satisfaction of that intent very clear.  The examples and then the
nomenclature differences between normative statements, conformance clauses,
and conformance targets can be explored for deeper understanding.

The Conformance Guidelines are referenced directly from the 2009-10-28 OASIS
Templates and Guidelines page, <http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/>,
directly from the OASIS Specification QA Checklist,
<http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/QAChecklistV2.html> at the end, and
indirectly in the OASIS Technical Committee Process that went into effect on
2009-09-01, <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php> second
paragraph of section 2.18 and of material importance in the definition of
"Statement of Use" in Section 1 item (ai).

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas J Guelzow [mailto:aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:17
To: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office-formula] BITAND

On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 11:04 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> (In this regard, I
> emphatically disagree with the PS in the note from Andreas, and I believe
> the OASIS conformance guidelines are also in conflict with that PS.)

could you explain to me what you see as the difference between the
following two statements (in the context of the OpenFormula

1) To comply with this specification, an implementation *shall* support
parameters of at least 48 bits.

2) An implementation *shall* support parameters of at least 48 bits.


Andreas J. Guelzow
Concordia University College of Alberta

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:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]