Hi
Andreas
Thanks
for pointing me to 6.2. Maybe Iâm getting hung up on
terminology here, butâ
If
the definition of a constraint is not intended to specify a
conformance requirement, the use of âshallâ is bothering me.
In 1.2 Terminology it is stated clearly that the use of
âshallâ is to be interpreted âas described in Annex H of the
ISO/IEC Directivesâ.
I have not been able to
find a copy of the 5th edition of the ISO/IEC
Directives Part 2, which is the edition listed in the
Normative References. The current edition of Part 2 is the 8th edition and
doesnât contain an Annex H. I have been able to access an
online copy of the 6th edition on the
CEN website, which has an Annex H âVerbal forms for
the _expression_ of provisionsâ, which I presume to be the same
as was in the 5th edition. Here the verbal form
âshallâ is specified in Table H.1, which is preceded by the
following text: âThe verbal forms shown in Table H.1 shall
be used to indicate requirements strictly to be followed in
order to conform to the document and from which no deviation
is permitted.â The current edition is organized
differently, but specifies much the same in Table 3 and clause
3.3.3.
I presume that
Keyword Guidelines for OASIS Specifications and Standards,
Appendix B, specifies the use of
âshallâ as currently interpreted by OASIS, and therefore as
assumed to apply to ODF 1.3. This defines the use of âshallâ
in the following terms: âto indicate requirements strictly
to be followed in order to conform to the standard and in
which no deviation is permitted.â This is clearly
consistent with the ISO/IEC Directives.
It would therefore seem
that the use of âshallâ in definitions of function
constraints is problematic.
Kind regards,
Francis
From: Andreas J Guelzow
<andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca>
Sent: 31 October 2020 20:33
To: Francis Cave <francis@franciscave.com>;
'Patrick Durusau' <patrick@durusau.net>; 'ODF TC
List' <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [office] Question on
implementation-defined - part 4 - formulas
HI,
On 2020-10-31 2:11 p.m., Francis Cave
wrote:
In my opinion the standard does not have to say anything about an empty string, because the Constraints section says that X âshall contain at least one binary digitâ. If the document is a conforming document, X will not be empty. If one goes down the path of defining how consumers should process non-conforming documents, that way madness lies, in my opinion. The spec should only specify how to handle conforming documents. All bets are off otherwise.
This has nothing to do with "conforming documents". Violating
a constraint does not make the document non-conforming. See
6.2:
Constraints: A description of constraints, in addition to the
constraints imposed by the parameter
types. If there are no additional constraints beyond those
imposed by the parameter types, this is
"None". If a constraint is not met, the function/operator
shall return an Error unless otherwise noted.
Andreas
Â
The alternative is to change the constraints to allow X to be an empty string, in which case it then makes sense to say how this should be handled.
Â
Francis
Â
Â
From: office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau
Sent: 31 October 2020 19:03
To: andreas.guelzow <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca>; ODF TC List <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [office] Question on implementation-defined - part 4 - formulasÂ
Thanks!
It seems like awkward wording but off-hand I don't know of a better suggestion. Will think about it.
Hope you are having a great weekend!
Patrick
On 10/31/20 2:57 PM, andreas.guelzow wrote:
The intention is that there are 2 possible values and the implementation should decide and define which of these two values will be returned.
Andreas
Â
Â
Â
Â
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
Â
Â
-------- Original message --------
From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
Date: 2020-10-31 12:12 (GMT-07:00)
To: ODF TC List <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [office] Question on implementation-defined - part 4 - formulas
Â
Greetings!
I'm compiling a spreadsheet of all instances of
implementation-defined/dependent and ran into an odd case in part 4:
6.19.4 BIN2DEC
...
If any digits are 2 through 9, an evaluator shall return an Error. It is
implementation-defined what happens if an evaluator is given an empty
string; evaluators may return an Error or 0 in such cases.
*****
Notice that we say "implementation-defined," but then immediately follow
with: *may* return an Error or 0 in such cases.
If we mean, "implemention-defined," isn't that all we should say and stop?
Or, are we using "implementation-defined" in a common sense and then
specifying with "may," the possible options to return?
This happens more than once in part 4.
Before I create a lot of needless JIRA issues, wanted to check with the TC.
Thanks!
Hope everyone is having a great weekend!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php--Patrick Durusaupatrick@durusau.netTechnical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)ÂAnother Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.netHomepage: http://www.durusau.netTwitter: patrickDurusau
--
|