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] Proposal: Drop "huge" group; any critically missingfunctions for "large"?

A super set of Excel and OpenOffice 2.0x is fine for me.  A clarification though -- are the Excel functions included in "large" jut the core Excel ones, or do they also include the ones only available if you load the data analysis add-in?

Also, has anyone looked at Excel 2007 beta to see if the function set has been extended?


"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com> wrote on 07/26/2006 11:12:03 PM:

> We have our hands full just defining the set of
> functions up through the "large" group, which is essentially
> a superset of Excel and OpenOffice.org.  Thus, I propose that
> we give up trying to define the "huge" group of functions at
> this time; if it's deemed worthwhile, that would be a reasonable
> "next version" effort. The "large" group is enough to capture
> most spreadsheet documents, no matter where they come from,
> and I think that's really what people want.
> Are there any "gotta have it" functions _not_ currently
> planned for the "large" group, particularly those that are
> painful to do without and have REAL users?  I'm basically
> asking those who use applications other than Excel and
> OpenOffice.org; we have pretty complete coverage of them.
> I do NOT want a laundry list of 200 functions to add,
> but adding a FEW functions to help people transition
> their data from other apps would be reasonable.
> Here are some candidates that I see:
> XOR(Logical+)
>    (issue: how many bits are enough?)
> Please speak up if these or other functions are
> "gotta haves as interoperable functions, and not in the spec".
> Any application can store the function using the local namespace
> (see the separate discussion about that), so any application
> can continue to use the other functions it has, and define new ones.
> The issue here is, is there another formula function so
> important for interoperability that we need to spec
> it NOW as a standard function?  Otherwise, it
> won't be in the first release of this specification.
> Thanks.
> --- David A. Wheeler

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