[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Deliverable: odf-diff?
firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: >> In that case, test results would be: >> >> a) not implemented - the application does not implement that clause >> >> b) pass/fail - the application does implement that clause, but it does >> or does not fully follow that clause specification. >> > > There are really multiple levels here. We must keep them straight. > > First there is the feature level. Some features are optional, some are > mandatory. Every ODF document must be valid to the ODF schema. This is > a mandatory requirement. But support for spreadsheet formulas is > optional. For example, if you are writing a word processor, then > spreadsheet formulas would not be implemented. Similarly, a very simple > spreadsheet might not have charts. > > Then there is conformance at the level of a feature. If you implement a > particular feature, such as the Zip packaging model, then some things > are required and some things are optional. That's correct, but what I wanted to say is that above might be the rule for doing any conformance test with any clause, mandatory or not. For example: MyOwnTextProcessor tests: - schema_validity: pass - hyperlink_metadata: pass - text_functions: pass - formula: not implemented - embed_multimedia_mpeg2: fail In that case, first is a must for the application to be considered ODF conformant, other two are important features for a text processor that might not be included in the schema, and they are supported; formula support is not implemented, and mpeg2 container is implemented, but doesn't pass the standards test (for whatever reason). That same set of conformance tests will produce different results on different products; the point is that tests are uniform, and that the report gives us a clear picture of things that work, that do not work, and things that are not implemented. Or am I missing something?