Re: [office] Formula subcommittee - olive branch?

["David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>]

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
 > Interesting thought.  Why do you think they suggested formulas in
 > particular?

Not sure; I'm no expert at guessing motives.
They may perceive this as an area where it WOULD
be possible to easily have a single spec.  I'd agree, it
SHOULD be possible for everyone to work together on this spec.

Perhaps, if it were widely-known that there was a SINGLE
spec for formulas for both sides, the "need for speed"
on formulas would be reduced... because everyone would know it's
the same thing.  And it might also give even more credence to ODF,
for those who think that only a particular vendor can set standards.

 > And on the other side, I'm not sure there is anything this TC
 > can do to
 > be closer to ECMA's formula language.  Why?  Because it simply doesn't
 > exist.  The posted draft EOOX does not specify formulas as being
 > anything more than xsd:string.

That's correct.  On other hand, it'd be delightful to have a single
spec that BOTH groups used besides XML. :-).

It is not AT ALL clear that this will EVER happen; I think it
would be very unwise to count on it.

But I think we should put out an olive branch and TRY to make it
possible to work together in the future, for as long it's practical
to keep the window open:
* Suggesting a liason between the groups would make sense.
* Perhaps we could maintain the formula spec as a physically
separate document, at least for a while, so that they could
reference it? I know of no reason why a spec can't have
multiple volumes.

--- David A. Wheeler