"Dennis E. Hamilton" <> wrote on 02/07/2009
01:14:16 PM:
> Whoa!
>
> I just received an off-list note pointing out that Iteration 9 of the
> Conformance Proposal (in version 8 of the document,
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00058.html>)
inserts
> normative language about table:formula. I missed that addition beyond
what
> we have seen in previous versions of the proposal. (I wasn't looking
for
> it, since we haven't been discussing spreadsheets.)
>
> I strongly recommend that we subdivide the table:formula conformance
> proposal out of the overall Conformance Proposal. I think it is better
to
> handle this when we know what conformance clauses in the OpenFormula
> document we are appealing to, and what their names are.
>
We need somehow to formally invoke the various "parts" of ODF 1.2 and how
the conformance of the parts related to the conformance of the whole. This
is similar to invoking an external normative reference, e.g., we say that
a conformant ODF 1.2 document must be well-formed, as defined by W3C's XML
standard. Similarly, we need to connect the dots with regards to formula
and package conformance. We should at least have some boilerplate
language that connects Part I with the other two parts in terms of
conformance. If we have a formula and a package part and don't invoke
them from the main part's conformance clause, then these other parts mean
absolutely nothing.
Remember, nothing is approved until we have our final vote to make any
Draft into a Committee Specification, and even then we are able to change
things in response to public comments before sending the CS on for OASIS
membership approval. Until then we'll need to do some bootstrapping,
since the parts are progressing at different rates.
-Rob
