Rob Weir said:
>>
>> Is it only ODF-compliant if it implements a particular level of
>> formulas? The question doesn't even make sense, because this program
>> doesn't even need to know about formulas. But still it should be
>> able to call itself ODF-compliant.
Of course. It doesn't make sense to REQUIRE all ODF-using applications
to support a particular set of formulas. But I think it DOES make sense
to have a shorthand notation of some kind that says "I support formulas,
with this common set of functions/operators". Otherwise, when you
create a formula, the only way to determine if it will interchange will
be massive testing, EVERYONE has to implement EVERYTHING, _or_ you can
never interchange.
I think a great value of standardization is revealing everyone's
requirements, and then working to try to achieve them (presuming "not
excessively complex" is a requirement too). So far, the union of
requirements looks like this:
* Don't require EVERY ODF app to support formulas
* Don't require EVERY formula-supporting app to support a massive number
of functions; some may only want to support + - * / SUM and a
specialized set
* Have a large set of defined functions, so that if two apps DO support
the same function, it means the "same" thing
* Have a shorthand way of describing sets of functions (and maybe
semantics) so that you can describe what a particular application supports
* Have some predefined sets of functions so that users can easily say "I
need set X".
This can all be easily done in a single specification, and there are
variety of ways to do it.
--- David A. Wheeler
