Hi Patrick,
On Wednesday, 2009-12-16 09:55:48 -0500, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Err, so if it is possible to re-phrase a "portable document" statement
> as would be the case for minimum integer size (I like that example by
> the way) that would no longer be a note but a normative requirement:
>
> evaluators shall support integers up to (some size). Evaluators may
> support integers in excess of (some size).
>
> Making conformance a matter of supporting the minimal amount. Supporting
> the larger amount is also conformance because it includes the lesser
> amount.
>
> The question then becomes what do we require, if anything, of
> applications that support larger amounts? Are those implementation
> dependent or defined?
There is no general answer. This may have to be decided on a case by
case basis. The example of integer sizes is nice, but mostly isn't
applicable to the cases where we talk of portable documents.
> Perhaps it will be easier to reach a consensus or at least move in that
> direction with the first couple of steps that you suggest above. Some of
> the "portability" issues are likely to attract near universal consent,
> like integer size. It may help us move more quickly than debating
> "portability" in abstract.
>
> Unless Eike needs the text back to enter more of his technical
> corrections,
I can do them later, working off the list of issues with status
Resolved, which will hopefully increase..
> I will start working on it along these lines. Will try to
> upload a rough version by next Monday so everyone can see the
> preliminary results.
So that would include steps 1 and 2 of Michael's suggestions? As I wrote
in my previous mail, replacing "document" with "expression" sometimes
may be a bit precarious. Well, we'll see how that will turn out.
Eike
--
Automatic string conversions considered dangerous. They are the GOTO statements
of spreadsheets. --Robert Weir on the OpenDocument formula subcommittee's list.
