|
[
Permalink
| « Hide
]
Robert Weir added a comment - 09/Nov/09 11:57 AM
Obviously, we cannot require a specific BNF via errata since that would be a substantive change. Also, I'm not in favor of producing errata that say nothing than "implementation-dependent". This really doesn't improve the standard. However, we could add a blanket statement in the introduction of the standard that states that anything not explicitly defined is implementation-dependent.
This is the same as
The request from SC34 WG6 is that we be explicit that this and the others with a similar response should have an explicit statement that the syntax and semantics of the regular expressions used is implementation-dependent.
To accomplish this, in section 8.5.2 under sub-heading "Use Regular Expressions" add to the only paragraph of text the sentence """ The syntax and semantics of the regular expressions is implementation-dependent. """ Errata 02 - ODF 1.2 Reconciliation. The treatment of table:use-regular-expressions is consistent with Errata 02 and goes further in suggesting that an implementation form ust conform to certain requirements of Unicode Technical Standard #18.
There continues to be no explanation of where the regular expression is found (i.e., which operand of a comparison is it?). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||