OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  Re: [office] Data Grid Size element proposal

    Posted 11-24-2008 23:53
    On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 15:34 -0800, Warren Turkal wrote:
    > 
    > I am concerned about interop. That's not the issue here.
    > 
    
    > "A reference with an explicit row or column value beyond the
    > capabilities of the application shall be computed as an Error, and not
    > as a reference.  Authors of portable documents may use whole-row and
    > whole-column references, such as [.1:.1] or [.A:.A], to facilitate
    > updating a document to large sizes."
    
    So I guess we all at least agree that opening a file from an application
    with a differnet grid size may result in different formula results.
    
    Then how can you say that you are concerned about interoperability but
    do not want it to be discoverable whether the grid size has changed?
    
    > 
    > In a conforming application, declaring the max size of the sheet is
    > pretty useless unless there is some use for relying on an error
    > generated by referencing a cell outside of the application's supported
    > range that I just don't see. I am open to the possibility that such an
    > example exists. However, at this point, I haven't seen one.
    
    This is ridiculous. Are you claiming that there will never be two
    applications with different grid sizes? If there could be two then
    clearly the larger one could use a formula that does not return an error
    which the smaller one would have to calculate as an error.
    
    There is no need for there to be a real world example available anywhere
    for this to be a serious interoperability issue.
    
    Andreas Guelzow
    
    -- 
    "Liberty consists less in acting according to
    one's own pleasure, than in not being subject 
    to the will and pleasure of other people. It 
    consists also in our not subjecting the wills 
    of other people to our own."  Rousseau
    
    
    Prof. Dr. Andreas J. Guelzow
    Dept. of Mathematical & Computing Sciences
    Concordia University College of Alberta
    
    


  • 2.  Re: [office] Data Grid Size element proposal

    Posted 11-25-2008 00:05
    On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 15:52, Andreas J Guelzow
    


  • 3.  Re: [office] Data Grid Size element proposal

    Posted 11-25-2008 05:44
    On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 16:05 -0800, Warren Turkal wrote:
    > Yes there is. If it isn't a problem in the real world, it's not a problem.
    
    I guess we pretty much disagree on the purpose of a standard.
    
    Andreas
    -- 
    "Liberty consists less in acting according to
    one's own pleasure, than in not being subject 
    to the will and pleasure of other people. It 
    consists also in our not subjecting the wills 
    of other people to our own."  Rousseau
    
    
    Prof. Dr. Andreas J. Guelzow
    Dept. of Mathematical & Computing Sciences
    Concordia University College of Alberta
    
    


  • 4.  Re: [office] Data Grid Size element proposal

    Posted 11-25-2008 17:54
    I believe that standards are meant to solve real problems. I also
    believe that standard committees should have people who want to
    discuss topics openly. It's not really personal in any way. I just
    want this group to design a great standard. I think part of being a
    great standard is properly identifying requirements and designing
    based on those requirements and not adding features that are not
    useful.
    
    I don't think that I disagree with you on the purpose of the standard.
    I just think our points of view might differ on how to get there, and
    that's what makes discussions like this one important for the TC to
    have.
    
    wt
    
    On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 21:44, Andreas J Guelzow
    


  • 5.  Re: [office] Data Grid Size element proposal

    Posted 11-25-2008 18:33
    Warren:
    
    This doesn't make sense.
    
    On 25/11/08 9:53 AM, "Warren Turkal" 


  • 6.  Re: [office] Data Grid Size element proposal

    Posted 11-25-2008 19:37
    Man, that really was unclear. :)
    
    I believe that adding features that have no function is actually bad
    for a standard (or any specification for that matter). When I believe
    that I have identified some feature that doesn't have benefit, I'll
    ask for an use case or example so that I can better understand the
    requirement. If an example cannot be produced for the use of a
    feature, I will get more skeptical of the benefit of adding said
    feature.
    
    wt
    
    On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:33, Duane Nickull 


  • 7.  Re: [office] Data Grid Size element proposal

    Posted 11-25-2008 19:54
    Fair enough.
    
    +1
    
    
    On 25/11/08 11:36 AM, "Warren Turkal" 


  • 8.  Re: [office] Data Grid Size element proposal

    Posted 11-25-2008 20:21
    On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 09:53 -0800, Warren Turkal wrote:
    > I believe that standards are meant to solve real problems.
    
    We indeed disagree here: I believe that standards are meant to avoid
    real problems.
    
    
    > I also
    > believe that standard committees should have people who want to
    > discuss topics openly.
    > 
    
    What is this about? Are you claiming I do not want to discuss topics
    openly?
    
    Andreas
    
    > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 21:44, Andreas J Guelzow
    > 


  • 9.  Re: [office] Data Grid Size element proposal

    Posted 11-25-2008 21:10
    Reading between the lines in the discussion so far, it sounds like the key 
    issue is that formulas in spreadsheet table may make assumptions about the 
    capabilities (namely max grid size)of the application containing that 
    table.  Under a rather bizarre set of circumstances, a spreadsheet can be 
    contrived that could depend on such knowledge.  But this is just a 
    specific case of a more general issue.  Look at spreadsheet formulas, and 
    how different implementations implement a different subset of functions. 
    That kind of mismatch is far more likely to occur than any problem with 
    different grid sizes.
    
    So, to state the general problem, ODF features are optional, meaning 
    conformance applications are not required to implement any specific 
    functions (beyond a few basic ones related to processing packages and 
    foreign elements and attributes).  So any given document may or may not be 
    fully understandable and fully processable by any given implementation.
    
    One solution would be for a document to declare what features it requires 
    from an applications, the assumptions it makes about capabilities.  For 
    example, a document might say it requires nested tables, footnotes, and 
    support for PNG images.  This could be put in a header, perhaps even in 
    the manifest, and would help an application to decide whether or not it 
    was capable of handling the document.
    
    Another solution starts from noting that the use of a given element in an 
    ODF document is already an indication of a dependency.  So in most cases, 
    an upfront declaration of dependencies is likely to be redundant.  You 
    would get the same results by parsing the document.  But there may be 
    exceptions.  Some things are easier to parse out than others.  And if the 
    desire is to prevent loading or to give a warning message before loading, 
    some things, like what ODF version you are using, what fonts you require, 
    etc., need to be very easily accessible.
    
    So, it might be worth considering that more general topic -- how should 
    ODF documents indicate their assumptions and requirements on the 
    implementation, whether for specific functions and features, or in terms 
    of limits such as grid size.  Or do we in general require implementations 
    to determine this deductively, as they parse the document.
    
    Regards,
    
    -Rob
    


  • 10.  Re: [office] Data Grid Size element proposal

    Posted 11-25-2008 21:17
    On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:21, Andreas J. Guelzow