[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] YEARFRAC, etc.
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 11:13 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: > David, > > David A. Wheeler wrote: > > Rob: Thanks for posting the YEARFRAC information from Microsoft XML. Sadly, it's not specific enough for a real implementation. > > > > > In what way is it "not specific enough?" As I recall, our definition did > not state the distinction between options 1 and 4 other than by example, > which is also insufficient for implementation. Pardon me? The fact that our definition is yet not exact is a reflection of a misguided attempt to make it look like what MS XL does. I believe OpenFormula has not yet been approved as a Standard. Finding utter nonsense in an approved standard is quite a different issue. > > I can try to get more information. But it's clear that we are > holding ourselves to a higher standard than ISO requires, since ISO > doesn't require accurate definitions of YEARFRAC. I guess we have all seen that ISO does not hold itself to any standard. > > > SC 34 is setting up an errata process to address that type of concern. I > am assuming that if we can propose a solution to the problem and obtain > agreement, even informal, that no one is going to deliberately adopt a > different definition of YEARFRAC. > I suggest that for the purposes of defining the behaviour of YEARFRAC in OpenFormula, we essentially ignore whatever MS has included in their definition but provide an exact (and therefore implementable) definition. Obviously we may want to used something which in general usage may resemble what XL does but since even MS was unable to define what they happen to calculate it is silly to try to emulate them to closely. Andreas