[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] YEARFRAC, etc.
Andreas, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: > 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. > > No, actually since we are trying to make a standard ourselves, it is our job to find when we have failed to be specific enough. This was an issue I uncovered months ago and strikes at the heart of an entire set of financial calculations. David assured me and I actually verified for myself, by chasing one accounting society after another until I finally reached "the man" on the issue who said: "whatever MS Excel does." ;-) Admittedly not the answer I wanted to hear but the purpose of standards, particularly one like formula, is not to specify the *correct* answer for something like YEARFRAC, which has never been defined, formally, anywhere. The goal is to define YEARFRAC in such a way that everyone and I do mean everyone, gets the same answer by applying it. Being contrary may be a value in some cases but not with standards. >>> 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. > >>> >>> I thought we were supposed to be writing our standard. Yes? >> 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. > > A better solution would be to provide an agreed upon and exact (and therefore implementable) definition that everyone will be using. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick > Andreas > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > -- Patrick Durusau firstname.lastname@example.org Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)