Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's OOXML Formulas Could Be Dangerous
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.'"
Pffft....as if this has ever been much concern to software manufacturers before.
Every EULA has boilerplate text denying all responsibility , and you'd be mad to trust any results from software implicitly. Double check it yourself , even if it's just a few corner cases.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
The trouble is that the politicians standardizing on this spec will look only at its length and declare it to be good. Maybe Microsoft made the specification long with that intent in mind.
Shame on all those who praised and continue to praise the OOXML formula specification without actually reading it.
What percentage of those who praise ODF specifications actually read it? Or any other specification? I would imagine it is a small percentage.
I doubt anyone is surprised. How can you possibly fast track a 325 page document, giving the public only a time amount of time to check it, then expect it to be perfect.
Man, I really really get annoyed at Microsoft.
Who is the author, Rob Weir?
So a guy working on a different document format, for a company who competes with Microsoft, has unkind words? Color me shocked.
Uh... ODF doesn't define spreadsheet formats. There's no standard for spreadsheets in ODF. How is that "parroting the party line?"
The Online Slang Dictionary
It may be open, but it is not free, i.e. the required changes can not be done by third parties or by a committee and then used by Microsoft. Microsoft wouldn't do anything that would hurt its embrace and extend business model, and OOXML follows that logic as well(it's so huge and flawed that no one dares using it).
Let MS do exactly what they want, they seem quite successful at it, if it bites them in the butt, so be it. I would just like our own software freedoms to be preserved. I have no intention on producing anything with their format, I'm sure I'll eventually have to read it, but the chances that the receiver of a document is liable for inaccurate content within that document seems very low.
What is the motivation, since I'm sure there must be a good one, to do this free work for MS?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
The problem is that we are talking about a proposed international standard and you are using the phrase "it's goddamn assumed by anyone...". There should ideally be *no* assumptions in a stadard... it needs to be as clear and accurate as humanly possible. Remember that once a standard is published it is translated into many laguages and possibly implemented in different cultures as mentioned in TFA. What you assume to be obvious may or may not be obvious to others.
From basic trigonometric functions that forget to specify units/i?
Trignometric functions are unitless to begin with. They are ratios.
"Shame on all those who praised and continue to praise the OOXML formula specification without actually reading it."
Reminds me of something I once heard a congressman rationalize in reference to a bill he just voted for containing several lame provisions (many with which he did not even agree): "Do you have any idea what reading a bill like that would entail?" I do. It would entail you doing your fucking job.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
It got off to a bad start. Technically that may be correct, but in reality, it is very common and practical to express angles in degrees. So, sin(30) = 0.5 and tan(90) = 1. Memorising the values of sin, cos and tan for 0, 30, 45, 60 and 90 degrees is a de-facto requirement to solve trig. problems in high school. Does Microsoft expect students to relearn all these convenient derievd units in radians, and go mad?
A document standard is a practical necessity to express everyday ideas in a readable format. Not to be technically accurate and practically useless. Try typing HCl + NaOH --> NaCl + H2O in Office, and watch yourself breaking the monitor.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Dimensionless or not, in the real world (i.e. not in math class - and you really have to pick one way in math class, too), you have to pick one system of representing it and use that to send to your functions (see sin() as an example).
That Wikipedia page you referred to us using the derived unit of "radians". There are a couple of different ways to represent that number - degrees, radians, grads. Hell, anybody that's ever used a calculator knows you have to use just one of those systems for your particular calculator.
Nice try, but do a little more research before posting and blasting somebody's article with illogical arguments.
Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
Just because a certain feature is the de facto standard, doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in a standards document to combat ambiguity.
Btw, comparing Excel (Excel users) to a programming language (programmers) is a stretch at best.
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
Other measurement systems use different units for angles, for example degrees.
In short, a thing being dimensionless does not mean no units are used to measure it.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Absolutely not. A standards specification should stand on its own, or reference other standards. "MS office" is an implementation, not a standard. It can't be used to define a standard any more than the wheelbase of your car can define what a roadway should be.
Further, if ooxml is as "free" as MS would have politicians believe, then referring back to a proprietary product destroys that "freedom". (It's really not free, anyway, but just for the sake of discussion...)
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Oh, I definitely agree that open formats are a good idea, and that this does show one very good reason why.
.doc format as well, usable by anyone (last I checked there was a "you must agree not to use this information to create products that compete with office" clause in the (outdated) documentation download) so that people could interoperate with those formats on non-Windows platforms. But do I wish for the binary .doc format to be an international standard? Hell no!
But, the point is that MOOXML is a shitty open format. It was written in a closed environment, without a decent review by anyone, in 1/20th the time you'd expect a spec of that size to take, and is being put on a "fast-track" process to ISO which means - if it goes through - it will never have had a proper review by anyone.
Yes, having the format be open is a good thing.
But this format is utter crap, on many different levels. It's size, complexity, inconsistency, bugginess, NIH-iness, reliance on Win32, etc., etc., etc.... make it completely unsuitable to be ratified as an ISO standard.
When you're turning something into an international standard, you want to take your time and get it right. That's what the standardisation process should be about. Creating something usable by as many parties as possible. MOOXML fails completely here.
Yes, I'm in favour of them opening their document formats. I wish they'd release updated documentation for the binary
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
Actually, in the US, many provisions in most EULAs are illegal and not considered valid. I don't know specifically about the "no liability" clauses, but I do know that in somewhat related cases, warnings do not remove a company's liability (i.e. wet floor signs aren't protection against a company being sued when a customer falls on said wet floor). I personally don't see why holding a company liable for damage caused by their software is a bad thing. It might get us software that will actually work...
Clones are people two.
Name dropping Bush is a nice touch too... usually when people can't make a coherent arguement, they throw the word "Bush" into their sound bite, because Bush is extremly unpopular and that is enough to make people lose their ability for critical thought. I mean, why didn't he mention Hitler while he was at it? Or Satan? Did anyone notice that insurance companies donate literally billions of dollars to campaigns over the past decades to get this passed? The Trial Lawyers of America, the political action group that represents ambulance chasers, gives 50% more campaign donations that the rest of the insurance, medical, and pharmicutical industry combined. They are the single largest donator to political campaigns in America. However many "billions" you think that the insurance companies spend, multiply that by several times and that is what the Trial Lawyers spend! http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.ht
Capping medical malpractice awards is another way of saying, "limiting the rights of the victim". Aren't you conservatives supposed to be all in favor of victim's rights? If your doctor screws up, don't you think you have rights to compensation under the law? Capping compensation is like capping prison sentences. It's like saying, no matter how bad your actions are, you can only be punished so far. For a group that so strongly supports the death penalty, being against having to pay for the damage you've caused seems absurd to the extreme.
How would you feel if everything was capped like this? If your building contractor was similarly capped? Did his malpractice cost you $100 million? Tough, you can only get $200k from him, regardless of whether he was entirely at fault, and found negligent at his profession. That would be insane. How much worse when it's something to do with your health! The Trial Lawyers of America There is absolutely *NOTHING* wrong with being a trial lawyer. To be against them is to basically be against the JUDICIAL system. How insane is that?
You used the derogatory term "Ambulance Chasers" to refer to trial lawyers. If they have a case, if there was fault worthy of a trial, what is *wrong* with seeking to make the guilty party pay? If it weren't for trial lawyers, the US would be a much more dangerous place to live.
I have absolutely no doubt that if someone's actions caused you significant loss of health, *YOU'D* hire the best trial lawyer your money could buy.