Spreadsheet Formula Conformance - Please Not Now

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

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.  


 - Dennis

PS: I now find it odd that metadata extensions are now moved outside of the
definition of conforming document, but arbitrary additions to
<style:*-properties> are still allowed in conforming documents.  I have no
recommendation about that, just raising one eyebrow.

FURTHER ANALYSIS:

The statement in the 9th iteration (makes an addition to section 10.8.2:

    "Within conforming spreadsheet documents, the namespsace prefix 
    shall be vound to the namespace
urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:of:1.2,
    and the formula shall be a conforming OpenDocument formula as defined by
the
    OpenDocument specification part 2: Formulas."

(I'm not sure where the typos come from.  I downloaded the document twice
but the problem seems to be in the stored document.)

The reference to section 10.8.2 is incorrect for ODF 1.2.  The correct
reference in draft 8 of Part 1 is to secction 18.1016.

The full text would then start out with something like

    The table:formula attribute specifies a formula for a table cell.

    Formulas allow calculations to be performed within table cells. 

    Every formula should begin with a namespace prefix specifying the syntax
    and semantics used within the formula. 

    Within conforming spreadsheet documents, the namespace prefix shall
appear
    and shall be bound to the namespace
urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:of:1.2.
    The formula shall be a conforming OpenDocument formula as defined by the
    OpenDocument specification part 2: Formulas.

    Typically, the formula itself begins with an equal (=) sign and can
include 
    the following components:

(I separated the normative statements to support the practice of having
different normative statements be separate for cross-reference and tying to
conformance targets.)

There are other defects with this revision (which is also inconsistent along
with giving standing to a "conforming spreadsheet document" as much as I
think there is indeed such a thing), and I think that we should not attempt
to piggy-back reconciliation of the intended restriction as part of the
Conformance Proposal.  


-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00088.html
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 08:39
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] Conformance Clause proposal, Version 8

The OpenFormula and Packaging parts are still being edited.  Once we get 
the draft of the core part done, we'll undoubtedly have a conformance 
discussion relative to each of the other parts as well, since each part 
can define its own conformance requirements.  But I would expect 
OpenFormula to feature prominently as a requirement.  That is why it was 
created.  I think the feedback on ODF 1.0 not having a defined formula 
language was unequivocal.

[ ... ]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 02/06/2009 
09:37:33 PM:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200902/msg00084.html
> Bob,
> 
> I can't find anything that pertains to limitations on formulas 
table:formula
> with regard to conforming documents.  Is there some proposal separate 
from
> version 8 of the Conformance Proposal, the ODF 1.2 Part 1 draft 8, and 
the
> OpenFormula 2008-12-21 draft?
> 
> Requiring prefixes doesn't seem to prevent extensions at all, since the
> namespace is not required to be one defined by the OpenDocument or
> OpenFormula specifications.  This seems to be clearly recognized in ODF
> 1.0/IS 26300/ODF 1.1 and the current drafts of ODF 1.2 and OpenFormula.
> (All implemented ODF spreadsheet documents I have ever seen use a 
"foreign"
> namespace for the prefix in table:formula values.  That's one reason I 
asked
> if you were granting variances to products, at least until OpenFormula 
shows
> up in implementations.)
> 
> Please take another look or point me to the proposal you mean. 
> 
>  - Dennis
[ ... ]