[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] list-override proposal
Florian Reuter wrote: > Here is my proposal for the list-override enhancement. > > It should also cover all use cases us the "list-id" proposal, so (in my opinion :-)) there is no need for a list-id. In fact I discourage the use of "list-ids" because: > * No backward compatibility: A reader which does not understand the text:list-style-override will still be able to correctly number all paragraphs. The only difference would be a different formatting. For example instead of 1. ii. 3. an old reader would generate 1. 2. 3.. > * Using a list-id approach would cause a serious backward compatibility break, since the reader would no longer be able to correctly generate the numbering. > The association of list styles with a “counter domain” is usually sufficient. By using a style-override the style of the number formatting can be changed. Splitting this relationship between a list style and a “counter domain” would cause unneeded redundancy, since in the “normal” case the list-id and the style-name had to be emitted. > * By introducing a list-id the transformation between text:lists and text:numbered-paragraphs can be quite complicated. This would be a burden for the implementation. > > I also included some "normative examples" for ODF1.1 lists to avoild from misunderstandings of how lists currently work. > > ~Florian Hi, as I told you already on Wednesday, I didn't share your concerns about the existing proposal - see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00172.html - in your serious given form. I also suggested to be more complete and precise in your proposal. Namely state, what exactly is the impact for your proposed text:list-style-override on the <text:list> element and on the <text:numbered-paragraph> element. I also think, that introducing the "override" attribute at element <text:list-item> provides much more flexibility, than to introduce it at element <text:list>. Additionally, I suggested to include the clarifications (2), (4), (5) and (6), which are given in the existing proposal - see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00172.html - in a similar form. The existing proposal also includes the clarification about the counter domain for numbered paragraphs - see (1) in http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00172.html -, which is currently not clear in the ODF 1.1 specification. See http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00046.html and the following thread, which discussed this unclear point in the ODF 1.1 specification. The proposed new attribute text:list-id has the elegance to clarify this in ODF 1.2. Thus, I suggested, you should include a similar clarification about this in your proposal, too. I'm a little bit disappointed that you haven't got considered any of my suggestions, yet. I think your proposal in its current state isn't complete enough in order to compare it with the existing one. Thus right now, I don't think your proposal is a true alternative to the existing one. Under the assumption, that you consider my suggestions, I want to ask you, if you can again consider the existing proposal and think about it. Please check, if you can support it. It's a compromise, that is supported by most of the TC members. Regards, Oliver.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]