3. SpreadsheetML Reference Material
From OOXML-Wiki
[edit] Throughout [xsd:boolean]
There are hundreds of instances where invalid xsd:boolean attribute values are used. For example, take part 4, 3.10.1.90 "sharedItems. In the definition of the attributes containsBlank, containsDate, it says:
"Specifies a boolean value that indicates whether this field contains a blank value. A value of on, 1, or true indicates this field contains one or more blank values. A value of off, 0, or false indicates this field does not contain blank values. The possible values for this attribute are defined by the XML Schema boolean datatype."
However, XML Schema 3.2.2.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/datatypes.html#boolean) defines allowed lexical value space for xsd:boolean as:
"An instance of a datatype that is defined as boolean can have the following legal literals {true, false, 1, 0} "
"On" and "Off" are not allowed values.
Proposed change: Either change the text to remove the "on" and "off" options or change the schema reference to the ST_OnOff type defined in 2.18.67, which does allow this set of values.
[edit] 3.2.1 [2]
"each view can specifies": change to "...can specify"
[edit] 3.2.2 p.1876, row 2, col 2 [3]
"When you use open a workbook": delete "use" or "open" as appropriate.
[edit] 3.2.2 p.1877, row "forceFullCalc", col 2 [5-6]
"recalculation of workbook": change to "...the workbook"
[edit] 3.2.2 p.1877, row "forceFullCalc", col 2 [8]
"when the workbook.": supply omitted closing text
[edit] 3.2.2 p.1879, row "refMode", col 2 [2]
"this options": change to "...option"
[edit] 3.2.3 p.1880, row "activeSheetId", col 2 [2]:
"Correpsonds": change to "Corresponds"
[edit] 3.2.3 p.1884, row "tabRatio", col 2 [1]:
change "Specified" to "Specifies"
[edit] 3.2.5 p.1889, row "vbProcedure", col 2 [1]:
change "Specified" to "Specifies"
[edit] 3.2.11 p.1894, row "autoRecover", col 2 [5]:
change "/false." to "false"
[edit] 3.2.12 p.1895 [9]
"This element tracks file sharing File sharing settings": delete second occurrence of "File sharing"
[edit] 3.2.24 p.1905, row "allowPng", col 2:
change "...indicates does not..." to "...indicates the application does not..."
[edit] 3.2.24 p.1905, row "codePage", col 2:
change "A code is table..." to "A code page is a table..."
[edit] 3.2.27 [20]
"...represent descriptive that...": supply omitted text after "descriptive"
[edit] 3.2.28 p.1911, row "allowRefreshQuery", col 2:
change "will refresh query table" to "will refresh query tables"
[edit] 3.2.28 p.1912, row "filterPrivacy", col 2:
"application has been inspected the workbook": remove "been"
"the user performs do an action": delete "do"
"comment might inserts": change to "insert"
[edit] 3.3 [p.1926, 22-23]
“Sheets often have Workbooks usually contain more than one sheet.” Change to:”Sheets often have Workbooks which usually contain more than one sheet.”
[edit] 3.3.1.17 [p.1945, 26]
“applicaiton” Change to”application”
[edit] 3.3.1.31 [p.1960, 24]
“specify constaints” change to”specify constraints”.
[edit] 3.3.1.37 [p.1968, final row ]
“not subsequent formula's” change to”not subsequent formulas”
[edit] 3.3.1.41 [p.1971, line 3]
“It used as a bounds” change to”It is used as a bounds”
[edit] 3.3.1.41 [p.1971, 8]
“It used as a bounds” change to”It is used as a bounds”
[edit] 3.3.1.47 [p.1976, 6]
“Note that this simply a guess” change to”Note that this is simply a guess”
[edit] 3.3.1.69 [p.2003, 17]
“may be ignored by applications who choose not to support this functionality” change to”may be ignored by applications which choose not to support this functionality”??
[edit] 3.3.3.83 [p.2025, 10]
“sheet. containing” change to”sheet containing”
[edit] 3.3.1.95 [p.2040, 14]
“Note:When” add space to change to”Note: When”
[edit] 3.3.2.5 [p.2047, 15]
change”fitler” to”filter”
[edit] 3.3.2.10 [p.2052, 6]
“repsectively” change to”respectively”
[edit] 3.4 [p.2053, 9]
“a tremendous savings” change to”a tremendous saving”
[edit] 3.5.1.3 [p.2074, final row]
“… so it shall should only be used” – delete”shall”
[edit] 3.5.1.5 [p.2076, 11]
“Styles define set of formatting properties” change to”Styles define a set of formatting properties”
[edit] 3.6.1 [p.2086, 3]
“Cell's are calculated” change to”Cells are calculated”
[edit] 3.7 [p.2087, 21]
“attached to & associated” change to”attached to and associated”
[edit] 3.7.3 [p.2089, 15]
“This element represents a single user entered comment..” delete additional fullstop
[edit] 3.8.31 [p.2136, Description and Result Table]
\ -”Display the next character in the format.” Change to”Displays the next character in the format.”
- -”Repeat the next character” change to”Repeats the next character”
(underline) –”Skip the width of the next character” change to”Skips the width of the next character”
“text” –”Display whatever text” change to”Displays whatever text”
[edit] 3.8.36 [p.2146, 12]
“body & paragraph” change to”body and paragraph”
[edit] 3.10 [p.2232, 10]
“row & column axes” change to”row and column axes”
[edit] 3.10.1.22 [p.2267, 15]
“that’s derived from” change to”that is derived from”
[edit] 3.10.1.22 [p.2267,16]
“that's labeled” change to”that is labeled”
[edit] 3.10.1.46 [p. 2300, 4]
“Therefore f you” change to”Therefore if you”
[edit] 3.1.10.59 [p.2315, 6]
“additional information that's” change to”additional information that is”
[edit] 3.11 [p. 2400, 14]
“update it's own state” change to”update its own state”
[edit] 3.17 [p2507..., throughout]
Many of the financial functions rely on a “day count basis” value that is not defined in this standard. Without this level of definition implementors will not be able to evaluate these functions.
Proposed change: Provide a full definition of “day count basis”, in particular with respect to treatment of leap years and leap days.
[edit] 3.17.2 [p2508, 16, 17]
The reference to the definition of the space operator is broken ('§0').
[edit] 3.17.2.1 [p2509, Constants ]
The syntax of constants is defined using an unspecified notation, that appears to borrow some characteristics of Backus-Naur Form for grammar productions, some notations from popular ways of specifying command line applications options, etc., all without formally defining the notation used. Note that other parts of the syntax for formulas similarly lack a proper format definition. The reference to the “constants” section is one example.
Proposed change: Either adopt a formal lexical-syntactic notation by reference (for example ISO 14977:1996 EBNF), or explicitly define your own.
[edit] 3.17.3 [p2521, #DIV/0!]
The “note” for this error value appears to define required behavior, not informative remarks.
Proposed change: Make the contents of the note be part of the main text, not as a note.
[edit] 3.17.4.1 [14-18]
Historical dates preceding 1st March 1900 cannot be recorded as dates in OOXML spreadsheets. This makes them unsuitable for genological work, etc, where sorting by date prior to 1900 is often a requirement.
Response: The specification is both forward looking while also taking on as a goal compatibility with legacy documents. The date system proposed in section 3.17.4.1 has been in use for over 20 years, and there have been no significant complaints from customers. The ecma TC did not feel it was necessary to change from this approach, as it would be outside of the scope of the goals for version 1.0 of the spec.
[edit] Section 3.17.4.1
The restriction to only two date bases is arbitrary and based only on one vendor's applications. There are other reasonable values for date bases, including earlier ones for historical dates.
As currently defined an OOXML spreadsheet may not express a date prior to January 1st, 1900. Microsoft Excel has a similar restriction. However, the other spreadsheets that have announced a desire to implement OOXML allow a broader range of date values in their spreadsheets. For example, Corel's Quattro Pro supports dates back to 3/1/1800, while OpenOffice , which Novell is adding OOXML support to, allows date back to 1 A.D. So it seems unwise to limit the date support to the more limited capabilities of Excel. We should offer vendors the choice to use a date origin of their choice, so long as they declare it in their documents. Excel could continue to declare a 1900 (or 1904) date basis, but other vendors could express their full capabilities.
Remember, there are people alive today, receiving government benefits, housing, pensions, healthcare, etc., who were born before 1900. As defined now, OOXML cannot represent their date of birth. Supporting dates 8,000 years into the future are not as useful, from a practical perspective, as supporting dates back a few hundred years in the past. Of course, each application vendor may have their own priorities.
Proposed change: Allow a range of vendor-declared date bases, or explicitly allow negative date serial values to express dates prior to 1900
[edit] 13.17.4.2 [24-25]
The use of decimal values to represent time within a day that require incrementing by 1/864 for each 1/100th of a second makes it difficult to convert SpreadsheetML times to ISO 8601 format datetimes accurately.
Response: Dates in a spreadsheet are actual data values which can exist in large numbers (millions). They can be included in formulas which themselves can occur in large numbers. In order to significantly improve not just parsing times but also calculation times, storing dates as integers, and not strings was viewed as a much better approach.
[edit] 13.17.6.7 [29]
The phrase "as accurately as possible" is ambiguous and should not be used in a standard. This phra e suggests that the points raised in reference to 13.17.4.2 [24-25] are significant and that it is not possible to accurately move from the decimal representation of time to an XML processible one.
Response: Each unique instant in SpreadsheetML time is represented as a distinct non-negative numeric serial value, which is made up of an integer date component and a fractional time component. As the time component of a serial value increases by 1/86,400 each second, Representing the time with the same accuracy in the form of text is not possible, so the usage of the term ‘as accurately as possible’ is unavoidable and if the same is not mentioned, the end user might interpret that the Date Time will be represented with the same accuracy.
[edit] 13.17.6.7 [4]
The date1904 attribute should be shown with the boolean value of "true" rather than its numeric representation 1 to avoid any ambiguity.
[edit] 13.17.6.7 [28-4]
Dates as stored in SpreadsheetML are not processible by other applications of XML as they are not defined using the standard XML datetime datatype. It would be an easy matter to add an extra attribute, ISO8601datetime, to the representation that would allow a processible form of the date to be associated with the XML record of each SpreadsheetML specific date.
[edit] 13.17.6.7 [p2529, 29]
This calls for the date serial number to be stored, “as accurately as possible”. This requirement is not precise and is untestable. Further, “as accurately as possible” may entail the use of codes such as arbitrary precision arithmetic, etc. which would have large performance penalties.
Proposed change: State the minimum precision required.
[edit] 13.17.7 [p2530]
There appears to be a production issue in the creation of the PDF version of this DIS. Many of the mathematical formulas that define the spreadsheet functions are illegible, and all of them are of low quality. For example, 3.17.7.24, 3.17.7.32, 3.17.7.38, etc.
Proposed change: Provide higher resolution of the mathematical equations.
[edit] 13.17.7.4 [p2536, ACOS]
It is not indicated whether the returned value shall be in radians or degrees
Proposed change: Specify the angular units that should returned.
[edit] 13.17.7.9 [p2541, AND]
It is not specified whether this function short-circuits or not. In other words, must the remaining arguments be evaluated once one of them is found to be FALSE? Since some functions have side effects, it is necessary to define this in order to ensure interoperability.
Proposed change: Specify whether this function allows short-circuit evaluation.
[edit] 13.17.7.11 [p2542, ASC]
This function converts a DBCS string to “half-width (single byte)” characters. But the mapping from DBCS to single byte is undefined. What is intended here? Truncation? Conversion into nearest single byte character set?
Proposed change: Provide a full definition of this function.
[edit] 13.17.7.12 [p2542, ASIN]
It is not indicated whether the returned value shall be in radians or degrees.
Proposed change: Specify the angular units that should returned.
[edit] 3.17.7.14 [p2544, ATAN]
It is not indicated whether the returned value shall be in radians or degrees.
Proposed change: Specify the angular units that should returned.
[edit] 3.17.7.15 [p2544, ATAN2]
It is not indicated whether the returned value shall be in radians or degrees.
Proposed change: Specify the angular units that should returned.
[edit] 3.17.7.17 [p2546, AVEDEV argument-list]
The function description has a typo/duplication: “cells with the value 0value 0”
Proposed change: Fix the typographical error
[edit] 3.17.7.17 [p2546, AVEDEV example]
The example given is incorrect. It is a formula for calculating the number of combinations of n things taken k at a time. This does not concern absolute deviation.
Proposed change: Provide a correct example.
[edit] 3.17.7.34 [p2560, CELL]
The list of values supported for the “format” argument is far shorter than the list of possible numeric formats. What happens if CELL(“format”, A1) is called on a cell with a format not on this list?
Proposed change: Specify what happens in this case.
[edit] 3.17.7.35 [p2563, CHAR]
This function maps between numbers and characters. But this mapping must be defined b y a character set and none is defined here.
Proposed change: Specify what character set is used for this mapping.
[edit] 3.17.7.37 [p2564, CHIINV 15]
This function says, “CHIINV uses an iterative search technique”. This is specifying an implementation, not a testable performance criterion. Other approaches should be permitted.
Proposed change: Keep the suggestions, but put them in informative Notes or Guidance.
[edit] 3.17.7.38 [p2564, CHITEST 15]
The definition of this function says the the results are “unspecified” if the two ranges do not have the same number of points. But isn't this a clear argument error where should be returned? Surely we can document what Excel does here?
Proposed change: Specify the required results for the case where the two ranges are of unequal size.
[edit] 3.17.7.47 [p2564, CHIINV 15]
This function cannot be calculated without making an assumption about the distribution of the data? Are we assuming normally distributed data? uniformly distributed data?
Proposed change: Make the distribution assumptions explicit.
[edit] 3.17.7.48 [p2572, CHANGE 15]
This function is ambiguously defined, especially with regards to the traditional units of measure. For example, a tablespoon is 15ml in the US, but 20ml in Australia. Which is meant here? Similarly, a cup is defined differently in various countries, e.g. 8 oz in US, except the FDA defines it for food labeling purposes as 240ml, while it is 250ml in Australia and 285ml in the UK.
Proposed change: Refine the definition of this function, especially with respect to pre-metric measures so as to remove ambiguity. Page.
[edit] 3.17.7.49 [CORREL]
The definition of the arguments in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar and y-bar are the sample means, not x and y.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.50 [COS]
It is not indicated whether the parameter is in radians or degrees
Proposed change: Specify the angular units that this parameter is in.
[edit] 3.17.7.63 [COVAR]
The definition of the arguments in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar and y-bar are the sample means, not x and y.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.65 [CUBEKPIMEMBER]
The “kpi-property” parameter lists a number of values which are undefined such as “temporal context”, “relative importance”, etc. This is made even more cryptic by the fact that this function, unlike almost all the others, has examples that fail to illustrate the returned values. If there is to interoperability in the use of this function, semantics in additional to syntax will need to be specified.
Proposed change: Provide the semantics for this function
[edit] 3.17.7.65 [CUBEKPIMEMBER]
The definition of this function says that it retrieves an OLAP Cube from a “SQL Server”. Surely this function is not limited to use only against Microsoft database servers?
Proposed change: Provide a vendor-neutral definition of this function.
[edit] 3.17.7.66 [CUBEMEMBER]
This function refers to, “A multidimensional expression (MDX) that evaluates to a unique member in the cube”. But MDX is undefined.
Proposed change: Define the syntax and semantics of an MDX
[edit] 3.17.7.74 [DATE]
The definition of date normalization is rather loose. I think you want to say something like this; “if month is greater than 12, then month-12 shall be added to the first month in the year specified.”, etc. The problem with how it is stated is that “that” does not refer to anything in “that number of months”.
Proposed change: Clarify the definition of date normalization.
[edit] 3.17.7.76 [DATEVALUE]
This function says that it can take a string in any valid date and/or time format. It further says that if the year portion of the input string is ommitted, that the current year is used. But what if the date is omitted as well, e.g, someone passes in a pure time string like “10:34”? Do we assume the current date? Or assume January 1st of the current year?
Proposed change: Resolve the ambiguity in the definition when a string with time format is passed in.
[edit] 3.17.7.77 [DAVERAGE]
Normative information regarding the processing of “an entire column in a database” is placed in an informative note. Since it is clearly stating a requirement in the processing this should be in the normative text.
Proposed change: Rework the note into the normative description of this function.
[edit] 3.17.7.78 [DAY]
The function does not define what a “Gregorian day” is, nor why it would be different in the 1900 versus 1904 date bases for a date in 1982. Is this just returning the day of the month? Why would this function return two values for that in 1982?
Proposed change: Define fully what this function returns.
[edit] 3.17.7.89 [DEVSQ]
The function description has a typo/duplication: “cells with the value 0value 0”
Proposed change: Fix the typographical error
[edit] 3.17.7.91 [DISC]
The function is defined in terms of $100 face value, but there is nothing about the security discounting that is intrinsically tied to the US Dollar.
Proposed change: Recommend the use of the generic currency sign here (U+00A4).
[edit] 3.17.7.95 [DOLLARDE]
This function is ambiguously defined. Specifically we need to know how many decimal digits we need to look at to determine the numerator of the fraction. The example given DOLLARDE(1.02,16) = 1+ 2/16. But what about, after a serious of calculations and in the presence of accumulated floating point error we have DOLLARDE(1.020000001, 16)? Is this now 1 + 20000001/16? or 1,250,001? Also the definition is worded incorrectly. The first parameter is not “a number expressed as a fraction.” It is “a numbered interpreted as a fraction”. Also, the information marked as “Note” seems to be the most critical part of the definition and so should be part of the normative material.
Proposed change: Clarify how this function works
[edit] 3.17.7.96 [DOLLARFR]
The information marked as “Note” seems to contain the only definition of what this function actually should do, so it should be made part of the normative material.
Proposed change: Rework the note into the normative description of this function.
[edit] 3.17.7.101 [DURATION]
The function is defined in terms of $100 par value, but there is nothing about the bond calculations that is inherently tied to the US Dollar.
Proposed change: Recommend the use of the generic currency sign here (U+00A4)
[edit] 3.17 [throughout]
The mathematical formula given in many places borders on unreadable and compares very poorly with the clarify of the rest of the text and most other images.
Provide better quality mathematical formula.
[edit] 3.17.7.111 [EXACT]
String comparisons in an international setting are typically described as either lexical comparisons where the strings are compared character by character for identity, and by collation comparisons where equivalent characters are considered identical. This function does not say which method it uses.
Proposed change: Clarify what defines two strings as having identical content.
[edit] 3.17.7.118 [FIND]
Similar issue to EXACT. Is this a lexical comparison or collation-based?
Proposed change: Clarify the basis for finding substrings
[edit] 3.17.7.119 [FINDB]
Similar issue to EXACT. Is this a lexical comparison or collation-based?
Proposed change: Clarify the basis for finding substrings
[edit] 3.17.7.120 [FINV]
This function says, “FINV uses an iterative search technique”. This is specifying an implementation, not a testable performance criterion. Other approaches should be permitted.
Proposed change: Keep the suggestions, but put them in informative Notes or Guidance.
[edit] 3.17.7.123 [FIXED]
The rounding algorithm is not specified. How for example, do we calculate FIXED(0.5,0)?
Proposed change: State what the rounding conventions are.
[edit] 3.17.7.125 [FORCAST]
The definition of the arguments in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar and y-bar are the sample means, not x and y.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.131 [GAMMAINV]
This function says, “GAMMAINV uses an iterative search technique”. This is specifying an implementation, not a testable performance criterion. Other approaches should be permitted.
Proposed change: Keep the suggestions, but put them in informative Notes or Guidance.
[edit] 3.17.7.143 [HOUR]
This function returns the hour given a date/time value. However, the text says, “The returned value shall be in the range 0–59.” Surely the hour should be in the range 0-23?
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.144 [HYPERLINK]
The definition says that an allowed format for the link-location parameter is a “universal naming convention (UNC) path on a server”, though this term is not defined.
Proposed change: Provide a normative definition or reference for a UNC path.
[edit] 3.17.7.169 [INTERCEPT]
The definition of the arguments in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar and y-bar are the sample means, not x and y.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.172 [IRR]
This text says, “IRR uses an iterative calculation technique”. This is specifying an implementation, not a testable performance criterion. Other approaches should be permitted.
Proposed change: Keep the suggestions, but put them in informative Notes or Guidance.
[edit] 3.17.7.186 [KURT]
Definition is incomplete. Formulas don't stand for themselves. You need to connect the notation to the function arguments. So, as stated, “where s is the sample standard deviation”, but it should be followed by, “and n is the number of data points in the range, and X-bar is the sample mean”
Proposed change: Provide the complete definition.
[edit] 3.17.7.186 [LINEST]
The definition of the arguments in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar and y-bar are the sample means, not x and y.
Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.201 [LOWER]
This function is ambiguous. Is it asking for a lexical, character by character conversion to lowercase? Or for a whole-word conversion? For example, Greek capital Sigma has two lower case forms, one reserved for use as the terminal letter in a word. As written, it is not clear whether this function should be implemented to take that into consideration or not.
Proposed change: Clarify what it means to convert to lower case.
[edit] 3.17.7.206 [MDURATION]
The function is defined in terms of $100 par value, but there is nothing about the bond calculations that is inherently tied to the US Dollar.
Proposed change: Recommend the use of the generic currency sign here (U+00A4)
[edit] 3.17.7.207 [MEDIAN]
The text currently says, “If there is an even number of numbers in the set, MEDIAN calculates the average of the two numbers in the middle”. This is ambiguous. Middle of what? Middle of the range is the most direct interpretation. Probably want something more like, “The values in the range are logically ranked from lowest to highest and the middle number is returned. If there is an even number of numbers in the set...”
Proposed change: Clarify the definition.
[edit] 3.17.7.227 [NORMINV]
This text says, “NORMINV uses an iterative search technique”. This is specifying an implementation, not a testable performance criterion. Other approaches should be permitted.
Proposed change: Keep the suggestions, but put them in informative Notes or Guidance.
[edit] 3.17.7.229 [NORMSINV]
This text says, “NORMSINV uses an iterative search technique”. This is specifying an implementation, not a testable performance criterion. Other approaches should be permitted.
Proposed change: Keep the suggestions, but put them in informative Notes or Guidance.
[edit] 3.17.7.243 [OR]
It is not specified whether this function short-circuits or not. In other words, must the remaining arguments be evaluated once one of them is found to be TRUE? Since some functions have side effects, it is necessary to define this in order to ensure interoperability.
Proposed change: Specify whether this function allows short- circuit evaluation.
[edit] 3.17.7.244 [PEARSON]
The definition of the arguments in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar and y-bar are the sample means, not x and y.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.249 [p2745, PI ]
The provided example contradicts the description, since it displays 10 significant digits in its fractional part instead of the (minimum) 15 significant digits which is stated as a requirement.
Proposed change: Fix the example or the text, so this contradiction is resolved.
[edit] 3.17.7.280 [RSQ]
The definition of the arguments in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar and y-bar are the sample means, not x and y.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.282 [SEARCH/SEARCHB]
Is this a lexical comparison or collation-based search?
Proposed change: Clarify the basis for string comparisons
[edit] 3.17.7.287 [SINE]
It is not indicated whether the parameter is in radians or degrees
Proposed change: Specify the angular units that this parameter is in.
[edit] 3.17.7.291 [SLOPE]
The definition of the arguments in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar and y-bar are the sample means, not x and y.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.296 [STDEV]
The definition of the argument in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar is the sample means, not x.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.297 [STDEVA]
The definition of the argument in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar is the sample means, not x.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.298 [STDEVP]
The definition of the argument in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar is the sample means, not x.
Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.299 [STDEVPA]
The definition of the argument in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar is the sample means, not x.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.300 [STEYX]
The definition of the arguments in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar and y-bar are the sample means, not x and y.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.313 [TAN]
It is not indicated whether the parameter is in radians or degrees
Proposed change: Specify the angular units that this parameter is in.
[edit] 3.17.7.335 [VAR]
The definition of the argument in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar is the sample means, not x.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.336 [VARA]
The definition of the argument in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar is the sample means, not x.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.337 [VARP]
The definition of the argument in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar is the sample means, not x.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.338 [VARPA]
The definition of the argument in the function is incorrect. It should say that x-bar is the sample means, not x.
Proposed change: Correct the text
[edit] 3.17.7.344 [WORKDAY]
This function is defined to skip over weekends in its calculations, but weekend is not defined and has different definitions in different parts of the world.
Proposed change: Define this function unambiguously and preferably in a way which provides for cultural adaptability in the definition of a weekend.
[edit] 3.17.7.348 [YEARFRAC]
This function is ambiguous. Specifically it does not treat the calculation in the presence of leap years. In the Actual/Actual basis, do we ever divide by 366? Or only by 365? Would we divide by 366 only if the leap day is between start-date and end-date? Of either start-date or end- date are in the leap year? If both start-date and end-date are in a leap year?
Proposed change: Clarify the definition of the function when involving leap years.
[edit] 3.18.95 [p2939]
All of the URLs provided here are incorrect. They lack the colon following “http”.
Proposed change: Correct the URLs
