OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-formula message

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

Subject: Re: [office-formula] Grouping functions and capabilities

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.


"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

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