MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















office message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Re: [office-formula] Proposal: Identifying nonstandard functions




From: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>
To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:47:50 +0200






I'm replying to the office list rather than the office-formula list, because 
I'm not a member of the Formula SC.

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> I don't think we want to get into the registrar business.  A vendor can 
> figure out how to create a unique function name if they want to create 
> such an extension, whether 123.DAYS, or 123_DAYS, or whatever.  If we 
> want to recommend a mechanism, then that's fine.  But creating a 
> registry is overkill.  As you said, the number of applications is 
> relatively small.

I agree to Rob. I think a registration business is outside the scope of the 
OpenDocument TC, and I believe also outside the scope of OASIS.

I further think we have to differ between using XML namespaces for the 
identification of extensions/implementations, and the use of 
[prefix]:[local-name] syntax of XML namespaces. If it is not possible or 
reasonable to use a colon within formulas (and I have no doubts that this is 
the case), then I think it is better to use a dot instead and to keep the 
other semantics of XML namespaces, then it would be to define a new 
extension/identification method.

Michael






Follow-Ups:

Re: [office-formula] Proposal: Identifying nonstandard functions
From: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>








[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]