Patrick Durusau wrote:
> I sense that the OpenFormula draft is attempting to define conforming
> applications separate and apart from conformance to the expressions,
> operators/functions that it does define.
That wasn't _my_ intention. However, I did intentionally separate the
notion of conforming _applications_ from conforming _documents_.
Perhaps that's the cause of your concern?
> If that is acceptable, there are some fairly immediate consequences for
> the current formula draft:
> 1. All references to applications/implementations are removed
> (conformance statements for applications can still occur in the
> conformance chapter)
I'm concerned that this might create additional unintended requirements
on documents.
Though I'll be honest, I'm having a little trouble visualizing what this
would look like.
Can you point to one specific example and what you'd change it to? That
might help me understand the proposal better.
--- David A. Wheeler
