RE: [oic] TIME function in ODF vs OOXML

["Andreas J. Guelzow" <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca>]

On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 18:00 -0600, John Haug wrote:
> Re: Andreas - Yes, if I had actually plugged numbers into the formula
> rather than examining it by sight, I'd have seen I get "2".  I'll
> pursue documenting our difference.
> 
> I still think there is value to considering allowing for - or at least
> identifying the possibility of encountering - both in the text of the
> standard.  Primarily since the modus operandi of the formula SC was to
> arrive at something that agreed with all the core implementations, and
> there are a couple that do it one way and a couple that do it another.
> That's ODF TC, though; I agree the interop advisory is the right thing
> for OIC.

Hi John,

There is also another place where the ODF specification differs from the
known behaviour of MS Excel. So this is not really that different.
(That's the reason Gnumeric for example has both a SUMPRODUCT and
ODF.SUMPRODUCT functions since we were unable to match Excel's behaviour
with the ODF specification.)

What makes this situation with TIME somewhat stranger, is that Apache
OpenOffice and supposedly LibreOffice (I have been unable to verify that
myself) have changed their behaviour from the ODF spec to what MSExcel
appears to calculate, but both of those implementations appear to save
those functions under the ODF name in ODS files.

This makes it virtually impossible to recognize which implementation is
intended, making proper interoperability impossible.

Andreas
-- 
Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD, FTICA
Concordia University College of Alberta

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part