[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

*Subject*: **OpenFormula (OpenOFormula?)- I'm working on a draft.**

*From*:**"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>***To*: ca@chbs.dk*Date*: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:23:00 -0500

Comment from: ca@chbs.dk > > ...OpenDocument doesn't specify the formulars used in spreadsheets so every spreadsheet vendor > can implement formulars in their own way without being an open standard. > This way a vendor can create lock-in to their spreadsheets. I think this is so important that I'm taking my January 4, 2005 proposal and reformatting it into a separate standalone specification for formulas, so I can send it in as a proposal to the committee. The committee did agree that they'd at least post some materials on their website. I would really like them to do more; I hope they'll take my document, change it as they like, and include it by reference as a normative requirement. I'm calling my proposal "OpenFormula". I'm starting with the spreadsheet tables, but I see no reason to have 12 different formula processors that are "almost alike" -- that will just confuse the user -- so I'm going to see if I can unify the whole thing. This previous comment scares me: "There are from our point of view also no interoperability issues, because the namespace prefix mechanism we have specified unambiguously specifies what syntax and semantics are used for a formula". Here's how I read that: "Every implementation must reverse engineer all other implementations' namespaces (they're not in the spec, so everyone's free to invent their own private incompatible namespaces). Then, every implementation must implement all the syntax and semantics of all other implementations' namespaces for formulas, if they wish to achive interoperability. And oh, by the way, your implementation might not implement the namespace for the document you're trying to load, so you may lose all the formulas." I'm sure that's not what was meant, but that's how it reads to me. I hope that helps explain why I think that the current formula information in the OpenOffice specification is grossly inadequate. My doc may get renamed to "OpenOFormula" (Open OpenDocument Formula) or something else so that there are no name collisions worldwide. Looking around at the OpenDocument specification, formulas just haven't been handled well throughout -- and this is fixable quickly if we hurry. There are completely independent draw:formula and anim:formula specs which ARE specified to more depth than the spreadsheet formulas. The "Table Cell Content Validations" are also better-defined than the actual formulas. So you have a better shot at exchanging drawing formulas, or exchanging validation rules for spreadsheet cells, than for exchanging the actual equations for spreadsheets. Huh? And there's also text:formula, which is sort of like the table formulas except there's no requirement that they be like each other. Table:operator and table:condition use "!=" for not-equal, but OpenOffice internally uses "<>" for not-equal. No, that inconsistency is not documented in the current specification, because the entire formula syntax isn't really well-defined. In short, the lack of a unified formula definition is a real problem in the current spec, and it's too bad, because it's not hard to at least make a first cut at fixing it so that the syntax and basic operations (+, &, etc.) are defined. In the longer term, it'll be very important to nail down a long list of functions and the EXACT semantics of everything (if you see a string when you were looking for a number, what do you do?). But let's at least get the syntax down, and a short list of functions like SUM(). Many spreadsheets only use a few functions and simple equations, and don't do things that would hit the edge cases. Oh, a note about formula namespaces; please let me know if my understanding here is incorrect. Section 8.1.3 of Open Document Committee Draft 2, 21 Dec 2004, says "Every formula should begin with a namespace prefix specifying the syntax and semantics used within the formula. Typically, the formula itself begins with an equal (=) sign and can include the following components..." And 6.5.3 gives this example: text:formula='ooo-w:[address book file.address.FIRSTNAME] == "Julie"' From this, I presume that if the first character of a formula is a letter, it must be a namespace defining some specialized formula processing system (keep reading til the colon to find the namespace's name; stuff after the colon is the formula). If the first character is an "=" sign, then everything after that is the formula, and the "default" formula processing system is used. I think there should be a single unified formula processing system (subject to the limits of security issues), so that "+" doesn't change its meaning unless you use a nonstandard namespace. I also think there should be a standard name for the namespace (I suggest the standard prefix "formula:"), so that if you want you can state things more clearly. --- David A. Wheeler

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [office-comment] OpenFormula (OpenOFormula?)- I'm working ona draft.***From:*Gary Edwards <garyedwards@yahoo.com>

**References**:**Public Comment***From:*comment-form@oasis-open.org

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]