[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Numbering spec
>>> David Faure <faure@kde.org> 11/20/06 10:33 PM >>> What I don't understand, is what the style-override solution allows to model, that the style-id solution doesn't allow to model (or vice-versa). Florian says style-override is more compatible to MSWord, because "the generic approach we took using the list-ids can not be mapped to Word". How can this be, if text:list-id="MyList" text:style-name="L1" (in the first solution) is equivalent to (in the second solution) text:style-name="MyList" text:style-override="L1" ? I don't see the conceptual difference; the first attribute indicates which list the paragraph belongs to, the second attribute indicates which style formatting should be used for it. What am I missing? =========== Hi David, Today every <text:list>….</text:list> definition only contains one “counter domain”, i.e. whatever you do its “one” list. Please note that the <text:numbered-paragraph> is just a different encoding of <text:list> and <text:list-item> elements. I use the <text:list> encoding, because I think my view can be better explained using this encoding. Again; every <text:list> element declares the domain of one list. The first idea we had by introducing a “list-id” element would break this. Then a <text:list> element could contain several lists. To state it different; the list-id approach makes the style of a list “fix” and the counter domain “variable”. E.g. <text:list> <text:list-item text:list-id=”LD1”> <text:p>Main Chapter</text:p> </text:list-item> <text:list> <text:list-item*> <text:p>Foo</text:p> </text:list-item> <text:list-item*> <text:p>Bar</text:p> </text:list-item> <text:list-item text:list-id=”LD2”> <text:p>Some kind of annex in this chapter</text:p> </text:list-item> <text:list-item text:list-id=”LD2”> <text:p>Another annex</text:p> </text:list-item> </text:list> </text:list> * text:list-id=”LD1” attribute is inherited here. The “style-override” approach is the opposite. It keeps the relationship between <text:list> and the domain intact, but allows to apply different styles to it. <text:list> <text:list-item> <text:p>Main Chapter</text:p> </text:list-item> <text:list> <text:list-item> <text:p>Foo</text:p> </text:list-item> <text:list-item> <text:p>Bar</text:p> </text:list-item> <text:list-item style-override=”Alphanumeric List Style”> <text:p>Some kind of annex in this chapter</text:p> </text:list-item> <text:list-item style-override=”Alphanumeric List Style”> <text:p>Another annex</text:p> </text:list-item> </text:list> </text:list> I prefer the “style-override” approach, since e.g. regarding accessibility it is --- in my opinion --- better to know that every <text:list> definition is one list with different styles. But that might not apply. I’m not an expert in that area. Regarding the list-id approach and WW its simply the case that a) every WW doc can be mapped to lists with list-id, but b) not every list with list-ids can be mapped to WW So my concern is to have a roundtrip problem here. E.g. you can specify lists of the form 1.1 1.2 2.3 2.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.9 5.10 ... where you simply assign one list-id to one level. I don’t think that we need to be able to express these kinds of lists in OD and thus I would recommend using the style-override approach. ~Florian P.S: The conversation took place some time ago. I changed the affiliation in the meantime :-)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]