Re: [office-formula] Goals/levels/packaging/complex numbers

[Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera@zmsl.com>]

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> I'm not sure if we're all thinking the same thing here.  For example, 
> simply having a section header in the specification called "database 
> functions" is sufficient to accomplish this, and becomes a shorthand 
> notation for implementations to state their compliance level as a 
> checklist item;  "SuperDuper Spreadsheet 1.0 supports ODF database, 
> financial and advanced math functions".

Sounds good.

Btw, I'm now convinced that your approach is best. That is, not 
requiring implementations to support every function in some list but 
rather saying "if you do support this function, support it like this".

I also like the idea of named packages. That is, to have a spreadsheet 
header say "this document requires the math and database packages" and 
have the application understand what that means. I also think that one 
of the packages should be called "basic". I don't think it should be 
mandatory (e.g. a tiny PDA might just implement + - * / SUM) but a 
"basic" package would at least be a useful guideline for implementors. 
It could be "recommended" that implementors at least cover the basic 
package.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-- 
      /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
     /\/_/
    /\/_/ I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for
    \/_/  stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels
    /     off of everything and let the problem solve itself?