Hi Michael,
Thank you very much for this. And yes, this will provide necessary
clarification for this ambiguity, while still leaving the possibility
for future extension/amendment if needed.
Best regards,
Kohei
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 15:04 +0200, Michael Brauer wrote:
> Hi Kohei,
>
> we have discussed the topic in the last work call, and the
> recommendation was to add information about the fact that spreadsheets
> are not expected to support nested tables to appendix D, which lists
> which parts of the specification are expected to be supported by typical
> applications.
>
> If you name other cell content that may not be supported by typical
> spreadsheet applications, then I think it would be possible to extend
> the note we add to appendix D accordingly.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
> Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 16:14 -0400, Florian Reuter wrote:
> >> I'll take a look at the formula spec.
> >>
> >> I just want to make sure that we all have the sme understanding of the semantic of tables-in-tables and sub-tables for spreadsheets.
> >
> > That's essentially been my argument as well. If the element is in the
> > schema, then the spec should give at least a rudimentary description of
> > what it does, and what it represents, to avoid allowing the implementers
> > incompatible interpretations of the same construct.
> >
> > As Lars said, there has already been a discussion of using