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.'"

Comments

Proof that open formats are a good idea?

[moosesocks]

I don't know about you, but I view this as being a very GOOD thing.

Because the format was an "open" standard, the serious flaws present in the format were quickly and correctly identified by third parties outside of Microsoft.

If it had been a trade secret, it could have been bundled into a product, and assumed to be reliable by its users. Instead, it's been exposed for what it is.

If anything, this proves that open formats are a good idea.

Re:Proof that open formats are a good idea?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

MS pretty much seems to have cut-n-pasted their MSOffice help files and decided to call that a 'standard'. Only thing good about it, is that it will make ISO be so much less willing to ratify their standard. If you look at their CEILING definition, as linked in the article's comments, it is so unprofessionally written you'd wonder at the size of EMCA's checks.

And proof that single-ownership is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that MS are the only ones who are allowed to change the standard, we must

a) wait until MS change the standard
b) then progress it through the "approvals" procedure
c) find out again if there are any problems (and go back to a)
d) implement these changes

And when it comes to WordSpacingLikeWord95 or whatever, how has this being "open" helped? People have asked what it means and been told nothing useful.

Oh, and doesn't this show that if MS had opened up the standard for perusal BEFORE filing it (like ODF did), wouldn't we have avoided this problem?

Re:Yeah, I'm sure this guy is objective

[topham]

Parroting the party line is promoting the fact that it has formulas as showing it is superior to ODF when the formula specification is next to useless because it wasn't reviewed properly.
If you read the article it isn't a cople of minor mistakes which can be corrected; it's a number of mistakes which have already made it past a review stage.

Implied warranty - fit for the purpose

[QuestorTapes]

> ...in general:
>
> * We trust all hand tools like wrenches and sockets to be exactly the size on the label
> * We trust all of our doctor's opinions whether or not a second opinion is recommended
> * We trust our math applications to do math properly
> * We trust our spell checkers to check properly
>
> In general, we trust the things we by to work as expected... as advertised.

http://www.oandp.com/edge/issues/articles/2006-08_ 06.asp

http://www.brajeshwar.com/finance/insurance/Liabil ity-Insurance.html

These links refer to the concept you're talking about. The second refers to the UK Consumer Protection Act, but the concept is general and fairly well accepted. From the first link:

"...any product that is sold comes with an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose; and, just by selling a product, a seller is implicitly promising that: (1) the product is merchantable, i.e., fit for the ordinary purposes for which such products are to be used, provided that the seller is in the business of selling products of that kind; and (2) the product is fit for a particular purpose, provided that the seller, at the time of sale, knew the particular purpose for which the product was required, and the buyer relied upon the seller's skill or judgment in selecting a suitable product for that purpose."

This hasn't been successfully applied to software cases like this, but the issue hasn't be ruled out either. But it's hardly a stretch to expect that software such as a spreadsheet comes with an implied warranty that ordinary financial and statistical calculations are properly performed.

Microsoft can't code

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> From basic trigonometric functions that forget to specify units

Amazing. That's the sort of mistake you'd expect from a First Year Computer Science Major, but not from a Second Year. This isn't the first time Microsoft have done this. Even for the Windows API, the code trumped the documentation. The best way to find out what a feature did was to write test programs to poke at it. Heck. Until recently DirectX needed three pages of goobleydo-gook to start up. These people just don't get APIs, period.

In Microsoft Visual Studio when you press F1 Help it comes up with a list that includes "How to Write Good Code". Yes, by Microsoft. Even in the early hours of the morning, it gets a smirk if not a gufaw or a laugh. Microsoft are not good programmers. Haven't been for a long time. Anyone worth their salt will launch a Start Up, or at least join a company offering reasonable growth and prospects. Microsoft is like a Pyramid Scheme. The people that joined at the start did very well. As for the people that joined late... not a chance. Which makes you wonder about the ones that joined anyway. Read the Book "Microserfs".

> Ecma

Why didn't Ecma pick it up? These Standard Bodies are in-name only. When a "Member" wants to push something through, it gets pushed through. Then the Member's sales reps can go to the Government body and say "Look! We have an Ecma approved Standard" and t he Government worker ticks the "Uses Industry Standards" box on the tender.

One of the funnier "standards" was a simulation standard called HLA. It was approved before anyone had built a proof of concept. People bet their careers on it and the whole government was ordered to embrace it. The only problem: When they finally built it, it didn't work. *OUCH!*

This is to be expected...

[rsmoody]

After all, they did not BUY this from someone else. They came up with it on their own. We all know, Microsoft's best products were purchased from someone else. Excel for example.