I know it's off topic, but...

[James Knott]

D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> | From: James Knott <james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org>
>
> | Don't confuse the file format with the application.  A new file format is the
> | ideal time to break such bugs.
>
> I agree, but I don't think that that is what is happening.  Not with
> OOXML and not with ODF.  I hope that I'm wrong.
>   

You are.  That problem is continued in OOXML, but not ODF.  Only Excel 
has that bug and it varies with the version.  This is very definitely a 
significant point in ODF's favour.  There are many other reasons for 
avoiding OOXML, including it's heavy dependencies on Microsoft Office 
and Windows.  The spec also includes many incomplete or hidden specs, 
that will make it very difficult for others to implement.

> I feel this way because I don't have years of work embodied in
> fragile spreadsheets.
>
> I do have years of work manifested in fragile programs and I do whine
> when there are "silent changes" in the programming language.
>
> C's evolution has rarely had these silent changes.
>
> Unless you count things like sizeof(int) changing.  They generally
> don't break my code because I know that I was never promised that they
> were stable.  But lots of other folks' code breaks that way.
>
> Spreadsheets started out being quick and dirty.  There was a lot of 
> inferring of what the user meant.  This, I think, makes many potential 
> changes silent and hence dangerous.
>
> | Or would you rather go on having spreadsheets
> | that can't deal with dates prior to 1900?
>
> Extensions are often possible.  So handling prior to 1900 is OK.  But
> I seem to remember there is a bug with respect to 1900 being treated
> as a leap year.  That may not be able to be changed under the accepted
> rules of the game.  Yuck.
>
> Let's say that you extend support to all years.  Then what does "93" mean 
> as a year?  1993? 0093?  It probably must mean 1993 for compatibility 
> reasons.  At least until 2093 gets closer.
>   

That problem exists only in Excel and depends on the version (Windows, 
Mac).  Microsoft they did it for compatability with Lotus 123, but Lotus 
says they never had that bug.

> |  If you're reading an Excel file,
> | accept there's a bug and fix it going forward.  Don't perpetuate it forever.
> | If you read through what information has been available for OOXML, you'll find
> | there's all sorts of exceptions that have to be dealt with, within the various
> | versions of Excel and other files.
>
> Has it not been decided that ODF has to have many of the same warts?
>   

No.  Part of the reason for going with ODF is to get rid of those "warts".

You might want to check out groklaw.net.  There are lots of links on 
this (and other topics) there.
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>   


-- 
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists