Re: [office-formula] YEARFRAC again

[Eike Rathke <erack@sun.com>]

Hi Andreas,

On Friday, 2007-01-26 09:21:52 -0700, Andreas J Guelzow wrote:

> > > Note: There are other actual/actual systems, for which currently there
> > > are no standard basis assignments.  Future versions of this
> > > specification may add them.
> > 
> > I'm fine with that and will change the portion accordingly.
> 
> So if one of the odf supporting applications wants to add another system
> we should pick some new basis number, hoping that nobody else picks that
> basis for another system or another basis number for the same basis
> number?

No, if really needed our formula subcommittee could assign new basis
numbers. However, I suggest that we do not touch that area.

> And all of that because Excel may add another basis number which may
> conflict with the ones assigned here even though Excel does not support
> odf?

That's independent of Excel supporting ODF or not. The point is that
applications want to be interoperable with Excel. So if for a given
function that is also supported by Excel you add semantics that Excel
doesn't know you create possible conflicts:

1. Documents exported to Excel using the new semantics don't work there
   and at its best generate an error. Ok, nothing strange, maybe users
   can live with it.

2. Much worse, if Excel defined the same number with a different meaning
   ex/imported documents silently work different. Most certainly nothing
   users would like to live with.
   
We can prevent both by not defining new basis numbers.

  Eike

-- 
Automatic string conversions considered dangerous. They are the GOTO statements
of spreadsheets.  --Robert Weir on the OpenDocument formula subcommittee's list.