Hi Regina,

Apologies, my previous response was not sent off the list intentionally - I
hit the reply button and forget to change the email address!

I have already changed the standards heading for ABS as you suggested and
will ignore compliance with ODF v1.3 for the moment.

I will insert a category "Functions not contained in the Wizard" as a
heading at the bottom of the page listing the function categories. I will
also insert MULTIPLE.OPERATIONS in the alphabetical page of functions. I
don't speak many words of German but will try to make sense of the linked
page at some point.

Thanks again.

Regards,

Steve

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 13:00, Regina Henschel <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> why not discuss it on the list?
>
> Stephen Fanning schrieb am 14-Dec-19 um 12:41:
> > Hi Regina,
> >
> > Many thanks for those helpful comments, many of which are clear and
> agreed.
> >
> > However a few things remain unclear in my mind, as follows:
> >
> >  1. With regards to addressing compliance with ODF 1.3, is that standard
> >     approved yet? If not, shouldn’t we wait until it is?
>
> It is not approved yet, but will come hopefully in 2020. It is currently
> in public review. I have added it for to explain, why I think, "1.2"
> should not be in the section heading.
>
> >  2. I have based the set of functions to be covered, and their
> >     categories, on those presented in the Function Wizard at v6.2.0.2. I
> >     worry therefore that removing the Add-ins category, or sub-dividing
> >     the Mathematical category, or changing the categorization in other
> >     ways, could cause unnecessary confusion for users.
>
> That is a valid reason, so keep it.
>
> >  3. Multiple.Operations is not covered by the Functions Wizard and so
> >     does not currently appear in the wiki’s list of functions. It is
> >     well described in the Help files and the 6.2 Calc Guide. If we also
> >     include it in this part of the wiki, which category would it be in?
>
> The help describes use of Data > Multiple Operations. The help has no
> description about using it as ordinary function. I have written an
> example many years ago, for a -no longer active- German Wiki.
> http://www.ooowiki.de/MehrfachOperation.html
>
> As the categories will be parallel to the categories in the function
> list in the UI, I would add a category "Functions not contained in the
> function list".
>
> >  4. I had envisaged that any constraints on the arguments would appear
> >     in the section entitled Arguments and any constraints on the result
> >     would appear in the Returns section. With that understanding (to be
> >     covered in a “guidelines” and “tips” page for authors) is an
> >     additional section entitled Constraints really necessary?
>
> No, that would be sufficient.
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 23:03, Regina Henschel <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Steve,
> >
> >     Stephen Fanning schrieb am 13-Dec-19 um 21:11:
> >      > All,
> >      >
> >      > At the last Documentation Team meeting, I agreed to initiate a
> >     wiki-based
> >      > description of the 500+ Calc functions. The idea is that such an
> >     area could
> >      > capture more technical information about a function than is
> >     possible in the
> >      > Help system. In addition we can provide representative use cases
> >     for some
> >      > functions.
> >      >
> >      > I have put some initial ideas together in the pages starting at
> >      > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Calc_Functions.
> >     Obviously
> >      > this is only partially complete and I still have a lot of work to
> do
> >      > populating the structure and the information about the functions.
> >     However I
> >      > would like to get some initial feedback from the team on what
> >     I’ve done
> >      > before taking the idea further (in case we agree on changes of
> >     direction).
> >      > So far I’ve only populated the details of one function, ABS.
> >      >
> >      > Please could any interested parties have a look at what I’ve done
> and
> >      > provide any feedback or comments? Maybe we can discuss the way
> >     ahead at the
> >      > next team meeting?
> >
> >     I would not make an own category "add-in functions". In former
> >     times, it
> >     was possible to not install them, and their internal handling is
> >     different. But from a user point of view and from file format there
> is
> >     nothing special about these functions.
> >
> >     Please add MULTIPLE.OPERATIONS.
> >     It has a special UI and is not listed in the function list. But it
> can
> >     be used as any other function and has nothing special in the
> standard.
> >     And the Wiki would be a good place to explain how to use it without
> the
> >     wizard.
> >
> >     It might be useful to make subcategories to the mathematical
> functions.
> >
> >     You might need an additional "guideline and tips" page for authors.
> >
> >
> >     And about the "ABS" example:
> >
> >     General:
> >     It would be good to have a template page for the functions, which has
> >     already all the sections.
> >
> >     You have set the technical term "Number" in bold. I would do the
> >     same in
> >     the Syntax. It might be necessary to use a letter for the parameter,
> in
> >     case the function is explained by some formula or the function has
> >     several parameter of the same data type.
> >
> >     Some functions have constraints. Such section is missing.
> >
> >     I would name the section not "ODF v1.2 compliance" but "ODF
> Standard".
> >     It needs a line for ODF 1.2, and a line for ODF 1.3.
> >     The reference needs the part number in addition.
> >     For example ABS is in
> >     Section 6.16.2, part 2, ODF 1.2
> >     Section 6.16.2, part 4, ODF 1.3
> >
> >
> >     Special for ABS:
> >     The first example should read
> >               =ABS(-56.7) returns 56.7
> >     The result is not negative.
> >
> >     Related functions are
> >     SIGN    for the sign of a real number
> >     IMABS   for the absolute value of a complex number
> >
> >
> >     Kind regards
> >     Regina
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     To unsubscribe e-mail to:
> >     [email protected]
> >     <mailto:documentation%[email protected]>
> >     Problems?
> >
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> >     Posting guidelines + more:
> >     https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> >     List archive:
> https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
> >     Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
> >
>
>

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected]
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Reply via email to