[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] Re: [office-formula] BITAND - Normative Statements
Hi Dennis, On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 16:09 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I believe I answered the question that I was asked by Andreas with > sufficient rationale (and supporting material) to explain the basis for that > answer. (Whether that is necessary rationale, I don't know, but I am not > sure how much we are all up to speed on the procedures and the conformance > guidelines that figure in them.) In the "PS" you had referred to I had suggested deleting "To comply with this specification," which you objected to. So I asked: > > could you explain to me what you see as the difference between the > > following two statements (in the context of the OpenFormula > > specification): > > > > 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. It seems to me that your "answer" was that you didn't think either was correct. I still don't know why we have that prefix "To comply with this specification,". Or how this sentence could be formulated in a way that you find acceptable. It appears that you object to the subject of that sentence. I note the use of "ODF editing implementations", "Implementations can"..., "Implementations need not"..., ..."used by implementations that"..., "Implementations may"..., "implementations should"..., "implementation shall"... in the current committee draft of part 1. If any of these expressions is truly a problem, I gather one should vote against sending the draft to public review. Andreas -- Andreas J. Guelzow Concordia University College of Alberta
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]