OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

  • 1.  ODF 1.2 draft 7 - table chapter

    Posted 10-24-2008 11:25
    Patrick,
    
    Niklas' has reviewed the table chapter and related attributes. He has 
    added his suggestions/comments directly to a draft with change tracking 
    enabled. It is attached.
    
    Best regards
    
    Michael
    
    -- 
    Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
    StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
    Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
    D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
    http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
    http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
    
    Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
    	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
    Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
    Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
    Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
    


  • 2.  Re: ODF 1.2 draft 7 - table chapter

    Posted 10-24-2008 12:15
    Michael,
    
    Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
    > Patrick,
    >
    > Niklas' has reviewed the table chapter and related attributes. He has 
    > added his suggestions/comments directly to a draft with change 
    > tracking enabled. It is attached.
    >
    Thanks and tell Niklas' that his comments are deeply appreciated.
    
    Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend!
    
    Patrick
    
    -- 
    Patrick Durusau
    patrick@durusau.net
    Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
    Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
    Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
    Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
    
    


  • 3.  Re: [office] ODF 1.2 draft 7 - table chapter

    Posted 10-30-2008 17:19
    Hi Patrick,
    
    On Friday, 2008-10-24 13:28:39 +0200, Michael Brauer wrote:
    
    > Niklas' has reviewed the table chapter and related attributes. He has  
    > added his suggestions/comments directly to a draft with change tracking  
    > enabled. It is attached.
    
    If you need further information on number style elements and attributes
    we additionally discussed during your visit to Hamburg, please ask me if
    there's anything left to be clarified.
    
    Btw, regarding definitions of various calendars it seems to be hard to
    find normative references for any of them. You mentioned that ISO has
    a standard about the Gregorian calendar, I found only ISO 8601 that
    seems to specify that it is the calendar as specified by Pope Gregory
    XIII in 1582, and a few dates as reference points such as the metric
    convention being signed on 1875-05-20 and 2000-01-01 being Saturday are
    defined. Is that what you were referring, or is there something else?
    I don't have a copy of the full standard at hand.
    
      Eike
    
    -- 
     OpenOffice.org / StarOffice Calc core developer and i18n transpositionizer.
     SunSign   0x87F8D412 : 2F58 5236 DB02 F335 8304  7D6C 65C9 F9B5 87F8 D412
     OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
    


  • 4.  Re: [office] ODF 1.2 draft 7 - table chapter

    Posted 10-30-2008 17:52
    Eike,
    
    Just quickly but looking at ST_CalendarType (Calendar Types) in ISO/IEC 
    29500 I see:
    
    gregorian (Gregorian) Specifies that the Gregorian calendar, as defined 
    in ISO
    8601, shall be used. This calendar should be localized
    into the appropriate language.
    
    gregorianArabic (Gregorian Arabic Calendar) Specifies that the Gregorian 
    calendar, as defined in ISO
    8601, shall be used.
    The values for this calendar should be presented in
    Arabic.
    
    gregorianMeFrench (Gregorian Middle East French
    Calendar)
    Specifies that the Gregorian calendar, as defined in ISO
    8601, shall be used.
    The values for this calendar should be presented in
    Middle East French.
    
    gregorianUs (Gregorian English Calendar) Specifies that the Gregorian 
    calendar, as defined in ISO
    8601, shall be used.
    The values for this calendar should be presented in
    English.
    
    gregorianXlitEnglish (Gregorian Transliterated
    English)
    Specifies that the Gregorian calendar, as defined in ISO
    8601, shall be used.
    The values for this calendar should be the
    representation of the English strings in the
    corresponding Arabic characters (the Arabic
    transliteration of the English for the Gregorian
    calendar).
    
    gregorianXlitFrench (Gregorian Transliterated
    French)
    Specifies that the Gregorian calendar, as defined in ISO
    8601, shall be used.
    The values for this calendar should be the
    representation of the French strings in the
    corresponding Arabic characters (the Arabic
    transliteration of the French for the Gregorian
    calendar).
    
    hebrew (Hebrew) Specifies that the Hebrew lunar calendar, as described
    by the Gauss formula for Passover [CITATION] and The
    Complete Restatement of Oral Law (Mishneh Torah),
    shall be used.
    
    hijri (Hijri) Specifies that the Hijri lunar calendar, as described by
    the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Islamic
    Affairs, Endowments, Da‘wah and Guidance, shall be
    used.
    
    japan (Japanese Emperor Era) Specifies that the Japanese Emperor Era 
    calendar, as
    described by Japanese Industrial Standard JIS X 0301,
    shall be used.
    
    korea (Korean Tangun Era) Specifies that the Korean Tangun Era calendar, as
    described by Korean Law Enactment No. 4, shall be
    used.
    
    none (No Calendar Type) Specifies that no calendar should be used.
    
    saka (Saka Era) Specifies that the Saka Era calendar, as described by
    the Calendar Reform Committee of India, as part of
    the Indian Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, shall be
    used.
    
    taiwan (Taiwan) Specifies that the Taiwanese calendar, as defined by
    the Chinese National Standard CNS 7648, shall be
    used.
    
    thai (Thai) Specifies that the Thai calendar, as defined by the
    Royal Decree of H.M. King Vajiravudh (Rama VI) in
    Royal Gazette B. E. 2456 (1913 A.D.) and by the decree
    of Prime Minister Phibunsongkhram (1941 A.D.) to
    start the year on the Gregorian January 1 and to map
    year zero to Gregorian year 543 B.C., shall be used.
    
    Apologies for the formatting but I don't (yet) have a useful copy of ISO 
    29500.
    
    Does that help?
    
    I will probably have comments and notes in the next version if not sooner.
    
    Hope you are having a great day!
    
    Patrick
    
    PS: Which raises the interesting issue of what we should do if we find 
    one or more of these definitions sufficient? Should we simply cite the 
    existing definition? Or for that matter, do we really need to re-define 
    Add? Seems like one definition may be enough. Assuming they are 
    semantically equivalent. May not be so I am not making a claim that they 
    are. But I do think we need to look to see.
    
    
    Eike Rathke wrote:
    > Hi Patrick,
    >
    > On Friday, 2008-10-24 13:28:39 +0200, Michael Brauer wrote:
    >
    >   
    >> Niklas' has reviewed the table chapter and related attributes. He has  
    >> added his suggestions/comments directly to a draft with change tracking  
    >> enabled. It is attached.
    >>     
    >
    > If you need further information on number style elements and attributes
    > we additionally discussed during your visit to Hamburg, please ask me if
    > there's anything left to be clarified.
    >
    > Btw, regarding definitions of various calendars it seems to be hard to
    > find normative references for any of them. You mentioned that ISO has
    > a standard about the Gregorian calendar, I found only ISO 8601 that
    > seems to specify that it is the calendar as specified by Pope Gregory
    > XIII in 1582, and a few dates as reference points such as the metric
    > convention being signed on 1875-05-20 and 2000-01-01 being Saturday are
    > defined. Is that what you were referring, or is there something else?
    > I don't have a copy of the full standard at hand.
    >
    >   Eike
    >
    >   
    
    -- 
    Patrick Durusau
    patrick@durusau.net
    Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
    Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
    Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
    Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
    
    


  • 5.  Re: [office] ODF 1.2 draft 7 - table chapter

    Posted 10-30-2008 21:44
    It certainly looks impressive, but it this collection of references really 
    valid in an IS?
    
    For example, many of the references are not to specific publications. What 
    how do we use "The Complete Restatement of Oral Law (Mishneh Torah)"? 
    Which edition?  Whose translation?  I thought normative references had to 
    be in an official ISO language (English, French or Russian).  This is 
    really a reference to a potentially large class of variant editions which 
    may follow different traditions, correct for different sets of scribal 
    errors (the original text goes back to the 12th Century), etc.
    
    Also, this is a reference to a 28 volume set of Jewish law.  To give no 
    more specific reference than the title is ridiculous. 
    
    So, IMHO, the references in OOXML are fun to read and amusing bits of 
    cultural trivia, they are of zero help to implementors.  That should be 
    the key clue that they are not good normative references, that they are in 
    practice merely eye candy and not useable by implementors.
    
    -Rob
    
    Patrick Durusau 


  • 6.  Re: [office] ODF 1.2 draft 7 - table chapter

    Posted 10-30-2008 22:22
    Rob,
    
    robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
    > It certainly looks impressive, but it this collection of references really 
    > valid in an IS?
    >
    >   
    Yes, references are valid in an IS.
    
    Your question concerns the adequacy of *these* references.
    
    The original question was what references were cited in ISO 29500?
    
    I answered that question.
    
    I agree these are facially insufficient, which leaves us with the 
    problem of either defining these calendars or properly defining the 
    references. That is if interoperability of calendaring information is of 
    interest. Simply listing tokens without more is facially insufficient.
    
    Hope you are having a great day!
    
    Patrick
    > For example, many of the references are not to specific publications. What 
    > how do we use "The Complete Restatement of Oral Law (Mishneh Torah)"? 
    > Which edition?  Whose translation?  I thought normative references had to 
    > be in an official ISO language (English, French or Russian).  This is 
    > really a reference to a potentially large class of variant editions which 
    > may follow different traditions, correct for different sets of scribal 
    > errors (the original text goes back to the 12th Century), etc.
    >
    > Also, this is a reference to a 28 volume set of Jewish law.  To give no 
    > more specific reference than the title is ridiculous. 
    >
    > So, IMHO, the references in OOXML are fun to read and amusing bits of 
    > cultural trivia, they are of zero help to implementors.  That should be 
    > the key clue that they are not good normative references, that they are in 
    > practice merely eye candy and not useable by implementors.
    >
    > -Rob
    >
    > Patrick Durusau 


  • 7.  RE: [office] ODF 1.2 draft 7 - table chapter

    Posted 10-31-2008 00:42
    I am a calendar and date-time algorithm junky, so this exchange provoked a
    little research on my part.
    
    I don't have any insight about the non-Gregorian calendars, but it would be
    great to provided references to authoritative sources that can be located
    and used.
    
    For the Gregorian calendar,
    
    It strikes me that IS 29500 punts on the rules for Gregorian Calendars as
    much as ODF does, although ISO 8601 does specify the Gregorian calendar in
    an indirect way.  If you know the rule for leap years plus the standard
    calendar, all you need to do to make a Gregorian Calendar is know the day of
    the week of January 1 for that year.  (It is a Saturday for every Gregorian
    year whose number is a multiple of 400.)  There is sufficient information to
    deduce reliable rules from that much.  ISO 8601 is more about recording the
    dates than computing them. ISO 8601 is rather vague around specification of
    durations without known context when there are units larger than days.
    There are two old (ISO 30 and ISO 31) specifications that are referenced for
    the fundamentals and maybe they help with regard to time sequences.
    
    I have no idea where one might find a better, authoritative modern source on
    the Gregorian Calendar.  Someone must have something (although the
    experience with time intervals in financial calculations gives me doubt
    where I previously had none).  My sparse collection of ISO standards refers
    far back to ISO 2014 (writing calendar dates in numeric form), ISO 3307
    (representations of time of day) and ISO 4031 (representation of local time
    differentials), etc.  None of these have to deal with the fine details of
    date-time comparisons, calculations, day-of-week determination, etc., and
    8601 supplants them anyhow.  Methods are neither specified nor referenced in
    ISO 8601.
    
    Oddly, the treatment in Wikipedia is valuable (and the External links reach
    out to a downloadable copy of ISO 8601:2004):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
    
    The treatment of the Gregorian Calendar is also intriguing:  
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar 
    
    Every Gregorian year number divisible by 400 has the same calendar and
    January 1 is a Saturday.  Also, there is a 400-year cycle (natch) but there
    are actually only 14 different calendars for Gregorian years and you can
    pick the right one using anything equivalent to the Doomsday algorithm:
    Figure out what the day of the week for January 1 is and also determine
    whether February has 28 or 29 days. There are many little arithmetic
    shortcuts that can be used. 
      
    
     - Dennis
    
    PS: What we probably don't care about so much, but should probably be
    accounted for in an authoritative source, is the difference between what the
    Gregorian date would have been for a relatively-remote past/future day (the
    so-called proleptic Gregorian calendar in the case of past dates in places
    before the Gregorian calendar was in use) and the date according to the
    calendar system that was/will-be actually in use.  (If we are talking about
    dates as recorded at the time, we must be careful to avoid confusing them
    with what the extrapolated Gregorian Calendar date turns out to be,
    however.) There are, of course, non-Gregorian calendars in use to this day,
    and converting among them is important.
    
    PPS: If we consider *time*, not just date, there are also those pesky
    time-adjustment events that happen from time to time.  I suspect that we
    don't care about those, but astrophysics scientist might have some
    information on the matter.  Perhaps on the matter of time there is more
    interest in the noise around time zones and various local-time adjustments
    (e.g., summer time and daylight savings times) in understanding the sequence
    and synchronicity of events in time.  Also an interesting challenge, but
    maybe not a high priority among those where we may need more precision of
    specification.  ISO 8601 indicates how to record everything that comes up in
    these contexts, but it doesn't say how to find them.
    
    


  • 8.  RE: [office] ODF 1.2 draft 7 - table chapter

    Posted 10-31-2008 02:24
    "Authority" means several different things.  It might be the civil or 
    religious authority that mandates the use of a calendar.  Or it may be the 
    first author to fully describe the calendar.  Or it may be a modern 
    reference that fully describes the existing practice.
    
    For Gregorian calendar, the original authority was, as you might imagine, 
    Pope Gregory's bull "Inter gravisimas".  But that is not the legal 
    authority, at least not in the US.  The authority for the US (or at that 
    time the British Colonies) was the Act 24 Geo. 2. c. 23 which said:
    
    "Be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, that the several Years 
    of our Lord, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, 2300, or any other hundredth Years of 
    our Lord, which shall happen in Time to come, except only every fourth 
    hundredth Year of our Lord, whereof the Year of our Lord 2000 shall be the 
    first, shall not be esteemed or taken to be Bissextile or Leap Years, but 
    shall be taken to be common Years, consisting of 365 Days, and no more."
    
    Of course, the path to the Gregorian calendar probably took a less direct 
    route in former French or Spanish territories that now are part if the 
    U.S.  When you combine that with the near (but not exactly) 
    contemporaneous adoption of January 1st as the beginning of the New Year, 
    and it is difficult to nail an authority.  Conventionally we just say 
    apply Gregorian after 1582 and pretend that it happened all over the world 
    at the same time, which it didn't.  So doing internationally date math in 
    the period 1582-1752 is treacherous.
    
    I could see burning a lot of digital ink on trying to solve this problem. 
    But we might consider when this is something akin to trying to define 
    "bold" in text, or defining what the "red" value in an RGB triplet means, 
    or defining a language code.  We're allowed to specify a language code of 
    "de_ch", but we are not obliged to define and explain what exactly 
    comprises the Swiss Germany dialect.
    
    -Rob
    
    
    "Dennis E. Hamilton" 


  • 9.  RE: [office] ODF 1.2 draft 7 - table chapter

    Posted 10-31-2008 02:46
    I was angling for a "modern reference that fully describes the existing
    practice" that is recognized complete and authoritative and that can be
    cited, found, and used.
    
    I think we are on safe ground with ISO 8601:2004 for the Gregorian calendar,
    even though it is a little indirect about it.  (I would not vouch for the
    ISO 8601 description of time intervals in units longer than days at all.)
    
    As I said, I have nothing to offer on other important calendars that remain
    in use.
    
     - Dennis
    
    


  • 10.  RE: [office] ODF 1.2 draft 7 - table chapter

    Posted 10-31-2008 19:31
    I want to add that recognition as authoritative should come from
    subject-matter experts, of course, while still being at a level where it is
    useful to standards authors, implementers, and other stakeholders to
    appraise the situation.  We hope that we are relying on something reliable
    and we owe it to our stakeholders to make clear what it is we are depending
    on so that they can verify it for themselves in reviewing our work.
    
    I'd say that ISO 8601:2004 passes muster as far as Gregorian-calendar dates
    go, although I must say that the Wikipedia accounts led me more easily to
    the key elements that needed to be verified in my inspection of 8601.  (I
    think that is the usual advantage of having alternative explanations as a
    way to guide and confirm my understanding.)
    
     - Dennis