Re: [office-formula] Grouping functions and capabilities

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

If we want to merely label these as
packages, such as "financial", "engineering", 'logical",
etc., and give a basic "intrinsic" or "core" set that
is universal, then I'm fine with that.  But I'd rather not have us
imply a score or graded level of support or similar marketing statement
via an ordinal ranking of functions or packages.   I'm thinking more
of function libraries in C/C++/Java/Python, etc.   Add an element
at the head of the document that lists what function libraries are used.

Remember, you'll never achieve any guarantees.
 Vendors can and will add spreadsheet functions if their users request
it, and so will the users themselves with hooks that will allow custom
functions to be defined in script.  There is nothing at the specification
level we can do to enforce which functions are implemented, since in the
end we're specifying a document format, not a spreadsheet.  There
are already plenty of examples where ODF editors have implemented only
parts of the specification.   That is natural.    All we
can really do here is make it easier for a spreadsheet agent to know what
functions are used in a particular to document, so it can take corrective
steps if it finds an unrecognized one.

-Rob

"Tomas Mecir" <mecirt@gmail.com> wrote
on 07/12/2006 06:19:32 AM:

> On 7/11/06, robert_weir@us.ibm.com <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
> >
> > I guess I'm not convinced that classifying the functions, by
whatever means,
> > changes anything.  As a user, if I want to use a FOO() in
my spreadsheet and
> > it isn't there, then the fact that the spreadsheet was rated
"Level 1" is
> > little comfort.  I don't have my FOO() and I want FOO().
 Ditto for if I do
> > save my spreadsheet from an editor that has this function but
then it is
> > loaded my someone who doesn't have it.
> 
> Well, the thing is, the only solution to this would be requiring all
> spreadsheets to implement all possible functions, and at the same
> time, prohibiting them from implementing anything more. Which,
> obviously, is not a good idea.
> 
> I personally like this LOGICAL_1, ... approach, it makes it relatively
> easy to check for level of compatibility, and allows incremental
> updating to be more and more compatible with the spec - for example,
I
> can have all Level 1 functions fully complaint, and most higher ups
> present, but occasionaly giving different results for whatever reason.
> 
> And, yeah, if agreeing on levels/groups is a problem (although I don't
> see why), let's just move on to defining each function and worry about
> groups later on.
> 
> / Tomas