[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] list-override proposal
On Monday 12 March 2007 14:13, Florian Reuter wrote: > I’ve been thinking about the list-id/list-override proposal the whole > weekend. Since we’re going to vote today and list-id/list-override I just > want to summarize my main objectives: > > 1. Backward compatibility. > The list-id changes the actual number of a paragraph. Thats false. No idea why you would think that. > The list-id makes is > impossible for old readers compute the right number. Thats false. Even without the list-id old readers can not compute the right number. Its not specified how to do that. > 2. Roundtrip fidelity. > The algorithm described by Oliver to convert between list-id and > numbered-paragraph contains non-deterministic choices. So the conversion > between list-id and numbered-paragraph will be non-deterministic which > results in a very bad user experience. (My opinion :-)) We since clarified the ideas a lot, and the algorithm may be adjusted. But, please be more specific when you give your opinion. I'd like to know if is an informed opinion. > 3. List-id and list-override solve the same use cases. I think you still misunderstand if you think this. > For reasons of 1-3 I can not support the current proposal which mixes > list-ids and list-overrides. I can understand that, unfortunately you have misunderstood the issues and failed to open any dialogue over corrections we pointed out to your interpretation over the last week. I find it highly unfortunate that we arrive at a point where its a "yes"/"no" match because there is no open dialogue over the actual issues at hand. > I’ve been persuaded by ODF users on conferences etc. that > stability of the file format is the most important thing. This is the only > reason I object to the list-id approach. Then please answer the email from Michael this morning which tells you how your idea that its not backwards compatible is incorrect. I, and others, have opened a dialogue with you over this issue several times, and the only thing I see next is another email with the same issues being repeated that have been corrected in the reply. Can you please continue a dialogue by replying to the issues addressed in the various mails on this subject? So far it's more like we're entered in a 4x100m relay, and you're doing the backstroke. That's not working. -- Thomas Zander
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]