[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-formula] Key Issues
robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > If we want, is sufficient for us to define ODF formulas period, > and leave it to a future specification to define subset and superset > profiles for various other uses. This could even be done by vendors or > on an industry basis, Well, spreadsheets are a mature industry. In a sense, vendors have already decided best practices. So, we could follow your approach without waiting a few years. For example, take the intersection of most interesting spread sheets and call that "basic". Take a spreadsheet that focuses on the scientific field (Gnumeric? - not sure) and use that to get the "science" package. You get the idea. I can't decide where I stand on the levels vs packages issue. I can see good arguments for both sides. I'll comment more when I have something meaningful to comment. > So maybe we can start by standardizing a way for implementations to > define profiles, but we don't standardize on any profiles ourselves? If we know of a current implementation that focuses on a specific area, we could ask them to submit a profile now-ish. > Think of C/C++. When C was standardized, it had a single set of > required libraries. But eventually there emerged subsets for embedded > uses and supersets for more specific uses. Ditto for HTML. I understand. I think spreadsheets are pretty standarized already though. They've been around for a while. So we can define packages now. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ /\/_/ I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for \/_/ stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels / off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]