Andreas,
Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 11:13 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> David A. Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>> Rob: Thanks for posting the YEARFRAC information from Microsoft XML. Sadly, it's not specific enough for a real implementation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> In what way is it "not specific enough?" As I recall, our definition did
>> not state the distinction between options 1 and 4 other than by example,
>> which is also insufficient for implementation.
>>
>
> Pardon me? The fact that our definition is yet not exact is a reflection
> of a misguided attempt to make it look like what MS XL does. I believe
> OpenFormula has not yet been approved as a Standard. Finding utter
> nonsense in an approved standard is quite a different issue.
>
>
No, actually since we are trying to make a standard ourselves, it is our
job to find when we have failed to be specific enough.
This was an issue I uncovered months ago and strikes at the heart of an
entire set of financial calculations.
David assured me and I actually verified for myself, by chasing one
accounting society after another until I finally reached "the man" on
the issue who said: "whatever MS Excel does." ;-)
Admittedly not the answer I wanted to hear but the purpose of standards,
particularly one like formula, is not to specify the *correct* answer
for something like YEARFRAC, which has never been defined, formally,
anywhere.
The goal is to define YEARFRAC in such a way that everyone and I do mean
everyone, gets the same answer by applying it. Being contrary may be a
value in some cases but not with standards.
>>> I can try to get more information. But it's clear that we are
>>>
>> holding ourselves to a higher standard than ISO requires, since ISO
>> doesn't require accurate definitions of YEARFRAC.
>>
>
> I guess we have all seen that ISO does not hold itself to any standard.
>
>>>
>>>
I thought we were supposed to be writing our standard. Yes?
>> SC 34 is setting up an errata process to address that type of concern. I
>> am assuming that if we can propose a solution to the problem and obtain
>> agreement, even informal, that no one is going to deliberately adopt a
>> different definition of YEARFRAC.
>>
>>
>
> I suggest that for the purposes of defining the behaviour of YEARFRAC in
> OpenFormula, we essentially ignore whatever MS has included in their
> definition but provide an exact (and therefore implementable)
> definition. Obviously we may want to used something which in general
> usage may resemble what XL does but since even MS was unable to define
> what they happen to calculate it is silly to try to emulate them to
> closely.
>
>
A better solution would be to provide an agreed upon and exact (and
therefore implementable) definition that everyone will be using.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
--
Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
