Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJkgY29tZXMgdW5kZXIgZmlyZQ==?= - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJkgY29tZXMgdW5kZXIgZmlyZQ==?= - Linux ; Tim Smith wrote: > It will be easy to find your functions in the file, and you'll see that > they are in a special OpenOffice namespace. *Everything you see in that > namespace is not covered by the ODF ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJkgY29tZXMgdW5kZXIgZmlyZQ==?=

  1. Re: Microsoft 'monopoly' comes under fire

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > It will be easy to find your functions in the file, and you'll see that
    > they are in a special OpenOffice namespace. *Everything you see in that
    > namespace is not covered by the ODF spec. *It's an OpenOffice-specific
    > extension.


    Are you sure?

    I just used kspread (a kde spreadsheet program) to save an opendocument
    spreadsheet and the formulas were saved under the "table" namespace
    ("urnasis:names:tcpendocument:xmlns:table:1.0"). As far as I'm aware,
    that's no "openoffice" specific extension.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  2. Re: Microsoft 'monopoly' comes under fire

    In article <3568074.SLPnCkeDVI@netscape.net>,
    Gregory Shearman wrote:
    > > It will be easy to find your functions in the file, and you'll see that
    > > they are in a special OpenOffice namespace. *Everything you see in that
    > > namespace is not covered by the ODF spec. *It's an OpenOffice-specific
    > > extension.

    >
    > Are you sure?
    >
    > I just used kspread (a kde spreadsheet program) to save an opendocument
    > spreadsheet and the formulas were saved under the "table" namespace
    > ("urnasis:names:tcpendocument:xmlns:table:1.0"). As far as I'm aware,
    > that's no "openoffice" specific extension.


    Consider a cell using the pmt() function. In kspread, it is saved like
    this:

    table:formula="=PMT([.B1]/12;360;[.A1];0;0)">
    >-1,342.99317634>


    OpenOffice, however, saves it like this:

    office:value-type="currency" office:currency="USD"
    office:value="-1342.99317634218">

    (The cell references are different because I put the formula in
    different cells in my two spreadsheets).

    In the root element of the document, that oooc: is given:

    xmlnsooc="http://openoffice.org/2004/calc"

    That's the OpenOffice specific extension I'm referring to. ODF doesn't
    say what goes in formulas--you won't find PMT defined anywhere in the
    spec. (Current spec. It will be in 1.2). So, everyone goes with a de
    facto standard--do what OpenOffice does (and their standard is "do what
    Excel does").



    --
    --Tim Smith

  3. Re: Microsoft ?monopoly? comes under fire

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >"AZ Nomad" wrote:
    >>
    >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 15:13:19 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >>>news:QOOOi.960$ah6.560@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
    >>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:09:23 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> What Bill Gates thought in 1999 is not necessarily
    >>>>> what Bill Gates thinks in 2007.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is Bill Gates a flip-flopper? Perish the thought ...

    >>
    >>>The term is "adapatble" or prehaps "versatile", maybe even "pragmatic".

    >>
    >> moraly flexible

    >
    >Disclosing or not disclosing software source is hardly a moral issue.


    He did not say or imply that it is, you fscking dumbsh*t.

    >You have been listening to the COLA choir for far too long.


    You have been a fscking dumbsh*t and a liar for far too long. Do the
    world a favor and take yourself deep.


  4. Re: Microsoft 'monopoly' comes under fire

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article <3568074.SLPnCkeDVI@netscape.net>,
    > Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >> > It will be easy to find your functions in the file, and you'll see that
    >> > they are in a special OpenOffice namespace. *Everything you see in that
    >> > namespace is not covered by the ODF spec. *It's an OpenOffice-specific
    >> > extension.

    >>
    >> Are you sure?
    >>
    >> I just used kspread (a kde spreadsheet program) to save an opendocument
    >> spreadsheet and the formulas were saved under the "table" namespace
    >> ("urnasis:names:tcpendocument:xmlns:table:1.0"). As far as I'm aware,
    >> that's no "openoffice" specific extension.

    >
    > Consider a cell using the pmt() function. In kspread, it is saved like
    > this:
    >
    > > table:formula="=PMT([.B1]/12;360;[.A1];0;0)">
    > >-1,342.99317634>
    >

    >
    > OpenOffice, however, saves it like this:
    >
    > > office:value-type="currency" office:currency="USD"
    > office:value="-1342.99317634218">
    >
    > (The cell references are different because I put the formula in
    > different cells in my two spreadsheets).
    >
    > In the root element of the document, that oooc: is given:
    >
    > xmlnsooc="http://openoffice.org/2004/calc"
    >
    > That's the OpenOffice specific extension I'm referring to. ODF doesn't
    > say what goes in formulas--you won't find PMT defined anywhere in the
    > spec. (Current spec. It will be in 1.2). So, everyone goes with a de
    > facto standard--do what OpenOffice does (and their standard is "do what
    > Excel does").


    So, what you are saying is that there's nothing wrong with ODF?

    Thank you for playing.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  5. Re: Microsoft 'monopoly' comes under fire

    In article <1303852.UuObDxXFRO@netscape.net>,
    Gregory Shearman wrote:
    > > In the root element of the document, that oooc: is given:
    > >
    > > xmlnsooc="http://openoffice.org/2004/calc"
    > >
    > > That's the OpenOffice specific extension I'm referring to. ODF doesn't
    > > say what goes in formulas--you won't find PMT defined anywhere in the
    > > spec. (Current spec. It will be in 1.2). So, everyone goes with a de
    > > facto standard--do what OpenOffice does (and their standard is "do what
    > > Excel does").

    >
    > So, what you are saying is that there's nothing wrong with ODF?
    >
    > Thank you for playing.


    You should write to the ODF people and tell them that they are wasting
    their time working hard on version 1.2, as there is nothing wrong with
    1.0.

    BTW, the question here wasn't whether there was anything "wrong" with
    ODF. It was whether or not it is a complete spec. It's not, as the
    spreadsheet formula omission in 1.0 demonstrates.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: Microsoft 'monopoly' comes under fire

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Gregory Shearman belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> That's the OpenOffice specific extension I'm referring to. ODF doesn't
    >> say what goes in formulas--you won't find PMT defined anywhere in the
    >> spec. (Current spec. It will be in 1.2). So, everyone goes with a de
    >> facto standard--do what OpenOffice does (and their standard is "do what
    >> Excel does").

    >
    > So, what you are saying is that there's nothing wrong with ODF?
    >
    > Thank you for playing.


    Tim doesn't mention if OpenOffice displays 65535.999... as 100000 .

    --
    Do what Excel does!

  7. Re: Microsoft 'monopoly' comes under fire

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article <1303852.UuObDxXFRO@netscape.net>,
    > Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >> > In the root element of the document, that oooc: is given:
    >> >
    >> > xmlnsooc="http://openoffice.org/2004/calc"
    >> >
    >> > That's the OpenOffice specific extension I'm referring to. ODF doesn't
    >> > say what goes in formulas--you won't find PMT defined anywhere in the
    >> > spec. (Current spec. It will be in 1.2). So, everyone goes with a de
    >> > facto standard--do what OpenOffice does (and their standard is "do what
    >> > Excel does").

    >>
    >> So, what you are saying is that there's nothing wrong with ODF?
    >>
    >> Thank you for playing.

    >
    > You should write to the ODF people and tell them that they are wasting
    > their time working hard on version 1.2, as there is nothing wrong with
    > 1.0.
    >
    > BTW, the question here wasn't whether there was anything "wrong" with
    > ODF. It was whether or not it is a complete spec. It's not, as the
    > spreadsheet formula omission in 1.0 demonstrates.
    >


    Apparently, you've never heard of the "extensible" part of XML.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2