Re: [office-formula] Proposal: Drop "huge" group; anycriticallymissing functions for "large"?

["Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>]

On Thu, 2006-27-07 at 11:32 -0700, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Andreas J Guelzow said:
> > I do find it disturbing that Excel and OpenOffice.org apparently
> > play a differnet role than the otehr spreadsheets.
> 
> Ah, I understand why you'd say that, because of the point at
> which you joined.  If you'd joined a few months earlier, you'd have
> asked why SheetToGo and wikiCalc play a different role.  When we
> we work on "huge", you'll ask why Gnumeric and Quattro Pro
> play a different role :-).
> 
> It's actually not that way; this is a side-effect of
> some earlier decisions.  They can be revisited, but I think
> it'd be useful to explain why we are where we are.  And it'd
> be a good idea to document what's going on here
> in the mailing list.
> 
> So, here's my try, at least from my perspective.
> (...)

I did in fact know the background of the division into large, huge, etc.
and understand that "large" essentially represent the functions
supported by Excel and OpenOffice.org. I have no issue with that.

Things change if we decide to drop "huge" from the first version of an
OpenFormula standard. Under those circumstances rather than just being
an issue of dividing the functions into groups so that an application
implementing the standard can choose which group of functions it indeed
wants to support it becomes an issue that the standard reflects only the
functions implemented by Excel and OpenOffice.org. I hope you see the
difference.

Andreas
-- 
Andreas J. Guelzow, Professor
Dept. of Mathematical & Computing Sciences
Concordia University College of Alberta