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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

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

Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Informative clauses

2008/6/23  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:

>> 2.4.2 Base Settings
>> The <config:config-item> element contains all base settings. The value
>> of the setting is stored in the element.
>> This is (barely) informative.
>> No shall.
>> No may
>> Not marked as informative.
> It defines a schema fragment, so that creates a number of testable
> provisions that will be subsumed into the schema validation portion of the
> conformance test.
> However, the nature of this particular clause is to define the storage of
> implementation-dependent application settings.  So there are limits on what
> you can test as to their content.  Other then schema validation, you could
> define a profile, say ODF/A for archiving, where such non-portable settings
> are prohibited.

Just count how many assumptions you've made to respond like that Rob.

Reading the contents of the standard (and no more) that's basically
not a testable clause.
If we're to put all sorts of reasonable into this mix the TC
will let anything by.

I'm of the opinion the TC should test to
a) What is explicit and clear in the standard
b) What is required (not what we might interpret as being required)
if it's optional, 'can' 'may' or anything else, AFAICT it's not
required so a vendor is quite entitled to totally ignore it.

Do you see it any differently?


Dave Pawson

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