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] Not specific to this attribute, example only


I would say this qualifies as a defect and should be treated as such.  

It might be that these are (producer) recommendations to consumers that
blah-blah-blah, and in that sense, if they say should (or recommended or
recommendation to avoid normative language), we might also need to say
whether the consumer behavior is implementation-defined or
implementation-dependent.  I suspect the latter, since we provide a blanker
permission that Conformant Document Consumer support of features is elective
(though presumably, if supported, conformance provisions kick in). 

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 07:50
To: Patrick Durusau
Cc: ODF office
Subject: Re: [office] Not specific to this attribute, example only

Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 08/03/2010 09:51:52 AM:

[ ... ]
> My question is that in a future revision, should attribute settings 
> be advisory? 

What is the alternative?

"disabled: texture filtering shall not be enabled."

But this is not really testable unless the semantics of "texture 
filtering" is fully defined.

or we could say:

"disabled: texture filtering is disabled." 

But that is just tautological.

In other words being more precise about the force of the clause (mandatory 
versus optional behavior) is a secondary issue compared to developing a 
testable description of the semantics.


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]