Microsoft's OOXML Formulas Could Be Dangerous 360
hill101 writes "According to Rob Weir's blog, Microsoft's 325-page OOXML specification for spreadsheet formulas is deeply flawed. From basic trigonometric functions that forget to specify units, to statistical functions, to critical financial functions — the specification does not contain correct formulas that could possibly be implemented in an interoperable way. Quoting Mr. Weir: 'It has incorrect formulas that, if implemented according to the standard, may cause loss of life, property, and capital... Shame on all those who praised and continue to praise the OOXML formula specification without actually reading it.'"
I WISH it was that "good"... :-( (Score:3, Informative)
I wish it was that "good". :-(
The OOXML spec seems to be a dump of the MS Office data formats, so it should already be decades old. But sure, let us not assume malice when stupidity will suffice as explanation. I mean, we don't speak about condemned criminal here, do we? Oh, wait...
Just want to point out... (Score:2, Informative)
If someone thinks that these functions even MIGHT work with degrees, than they should NOT be implementing them for anything that might cause the "loss of life, property, and capital". Leave the important stuff like that to professionals.
Re:Surely we all saw this coming (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Surely we all saw this coming (Score:5, Informative)
Article on BBC (Score:3, Informative)
The BBC have published an article by FSFE [bbc.co.uk] also explaining the general problems of MS's non-open OOXML format (and proprietary formats in general).
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Microsoft can't code (Score:3, Informative)
Example 1: a square
FORWARD 100
LEFT 90
FORWARD 100
LEFT 90
FORWARD 100
LEFT 90
FORWARD 100
LEFT 90
Re:MS Office approx. Reference Implementation (Score:4, Informative)
-And who guarantees that the "reference implementation" is still available 5 years from now? (hint: Microsoft tends to discontinue sale of its products after a few years).
Re:Guess what? (Score:5, Informative)
1: What is the default argument
2: Is the specification consistent across all functions which use this type of value as an argument
A specification which conforms to neither proper or common usage is worse than no specification at all
This is what Rob Weir was saying.
MS claims this is a FULLY DEFINED STANDARD (Score:5, Informative)
When other people claim a standard is fully defined, it means that all the standard use cases are defined* - units, expected parameters, optional parameters, etc. In the real world, nobody uses radians. Radians are used by engineers & scientists. Pilots, backyard builders, school children, and the occasional office worker use degrees.
To be honest, nobody cares if OOXML defines SIN(x) to take radians, degrees, gradians, or hyperbian-arc-vectors. What we care about is that someplace in the fully defined standard, OOXML needs to say:
DEFINE: SIN(x[,unit])
That's how a proper standard useable for international work in multiple fields is defined. You do not just dump your US help file into the standard & call it done. I have had to deal with a lot of standards, both Military and Industrial, the OOXML standard is well below the grade of the average Mil or Ind standard.
That's before you get to the point of inclusions in the standard like "Must Replicate Office 98 Behaviour for this feature". Now, if there was a reference to another standard that defined Office 98 behaviour, then it's not a problem. However, I don't see a reference included in the OOXML standard. Worse, for dates, OOXML defines the proper behaviour as their broken implimentation of the Gregorian Calendar - a direct conflict to the existing ISO standards.
I don't care who sponsored this standard, it's not a properly writen standard. It has huge holes & it's contradictory to several existing standards. Either one should get it rejected. If MS cleans it up so it meets the actual requirements of a "STANDARD" then they should get approved. If they leave it as the crap heap it is, it should be rejected.
*- if passing sqr(-6) as a unit works in the implimentation, that's not the standards problem. However, if the standard fails to mention the default unit type & the existance of the unit parameter, then there's an issue.
Re:Guess what? (Score:5, Informative)
From wikipedia:
"The number 360 as the number of 'degrees' (i.e. smallest practical sub-arcs) in a circle, and hence the unit of a degree as a sub-arc of 1360 of the circle, was probably adopted because it approximates the number of days in a year. Its use is often said to originate from the methods of the ancient Babylonians. Ancient astronomers noticed that the stars in the sky, which circle the celestial pole every day, seem to advance in that circle by approximately one-360th of a circle, i.e. one degree, each day. Primitive calendars, such as the Persian Calendar used 360 days for a year. Its application to measuring angles in geometry can possibly be traced to Thales who popularized geometry among the Greeks and lived in Anatolia (modern western Turkey) among people who had dealings with Egypt and Babylon.
Another motivation for choosing the number 360 is that it is readily divisible: 360 has 24 divisors (including 1 and 360), including every number from 1 to 10 except 7. For the number of degrees in a circle to be divisible by every number from 1 to 10, there would need to be 2520 degrees in a circle, which is a much less convenient number.
Divisors of 360: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180, 360"
Re:MS claims this is a FULLY DEFINED STANDARD (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Impartial reviews (Score:5, Informative)
That's the rule for American English. British English is often more logical.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quot
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/writing-style.htm