Re: [office] Re: [office-formula] BITAND - Normative Statements

Patrick Durusau <> wrote on 12/11/2009 07:02:17 AM:

> At this stage of the editing I personally think it is premature to start 

> worrying about the details on conformance statements, particularly when, 

> as I observed in a JIRA issue last night, we use but don't define 
> "settlement" in the financial functions.
> 
> Before we can talk about conformance clauses I think we need to have 
> adequately defined all those things to which we want to specify 
> conformance.
> 

I'd agree with that.  I'd take it like:

1) Let's agree on the technical requirements as engineers understand them.
2) Remove the informative material that does not define requirements or is 
not necessary to support these definitions.
3) Phrase each requirement in terms of our conformance targets and levels.
4) Structure the requirements in a way that meets OASIS and ISO drafting 
requirements, e.g., the required conformance clause.

Obviously, this is not a strict "waterfall" model.  There will be work on 
multiple levels simultaneously.  But we should probably emphasize that 
we've captured the intended technical requirements before we worry too 
much about the OASIS template. 

-Rob