+1
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: [mailto:]
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 <> 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.
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
