|
[
Permalink
| « Hide
]
Patrick Durusau added a comment - 06/Jul/09 01:26 PM
True, semantics need to be defined, including in current version.
discussed in ad-hoc on 7/7 -- need also to address treatment of strings and empty cells. Should we harmonize with OpenFormula's definitions.
"auto" is an error for all usages except in data pilot tables.
A table:function="auto" of <table:data-pilot-subtotal> specifies that subtotals shall use the same function(s) that is/are used to calculate the <table:data-pilot-field>s with table:orientation="data". A table:function="auto" of a <table:data-pilot-field> with table:orientation="column" or table:orientation="row" specifies that no function is applied to that category field. The functions are the OpenFormula functions used in spreadsheets. average := AVERAGE count := COUNTA countnums := COUNT max := MAX min := MIN product := PRODUCT stdev := STDEV stdevp := STDEVP sum := SUM var := VAR varp := VARP As this issue is also targeted to ODF 1.0 Errata 02, I'm not sure if and how and to what extend we want to include definitions for the functions there? We certainly do not want to repeat the work of OpenFormula ... 7/13 -- Ad hoc discussed and recommends no Change in ODF 1.0 Errata, but will address in ODF 1.2 with OpenFormula
DISCUSSION REQUESTED
Does this resolution mean that, in the defect report response we will say that the issue is deferred to resolution in ODF 1.2? Should there be an issue that tracks our actually having done that? Err, does this mean that I don't have to resolve this in Part 1. So I get to proof part 2 for it? ;-) Just checking so I can close out part 1 or at least consider it done while we clean it up for public review.
1. The discussion here focuses on ODF 1.2 and does not describe the resolution with respect to ODF 1.0 Errata.
2. ODF 1.0 Errata CD04 rejects this defect item with the statement that """ Rejected, the correction of this defect would exceed the limits of OASIS errata and therefore it will be addressed in ODF 1.2. The behavior in question is implementation dependent for purposes of ISO 26300. """ 3. If that is the case, I believe we should add a statement to the effect that "These functions are implementation-dependent." at the end of the 8.6.10 sub-heading "Function" paragraph, before the sentence "For category columns ..." in the paragraph under 8.8.4 sub-headning "Function", at the end of the 8.8.7 sub-heading "Function" paragraph, and at the end of the 8.9 sub-heading "Function" paragraph. @Dennis:
I adjusted your suggestion only slightly by moving the implementation-dependent statement always at the same place. For ODF 1.0 8.6.10, the definition in ODF 1.2 Part 1 section 19.645.1 and the usage in 19.645.5 are consistent with Errata 02.
However, auto is listed as a defined value in 19.645.5 when that is not actually the case. For the other three cases identfied and treated in this defect report, there are inconsistencies between the Errata and the description in ODF 1.2. The three subtasks are created in an attempt to get at least to consistency with Errata 02, although there may be secondary issues to address on some future occasion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Bug
Applied
Major
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 N 1078 : DEFECT REPORT NUMBER JP2-23
