[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: comparing requirements against Thomas'/David's/Oliver's proposal
Dear TC members, following is my view on the proposal from Thomas, David and me - see http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00237.html - considering the given requirements from Florian, Michael, Thomas and myself: ad F1: The proposal meets this requirement for <text:list> lists. Because ODF 1.0/1.1 doesn't specify how <text:numbered-paragraph> lists are formed and thus, how they are numbered, no statement can be made here. I disagree to Florian's statement, given in http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00216.html, that the proposal doesn't meet the requirement, because the given ODF 1.0/1.1 XML fragment doesn't conform to ODF 1.0/1.1. It contains attributes text:id and text:continue-list, which doesn't exist in ODF 1.0/1.1 ad F2: The proposal doesn't cover this requirement. In my opinion, the ODF 1.2 specification doesn't have to take care about ODF 1.0/1.1 documents, which are mis-interpreted or wrong interpreted by a certain application. Thus, I don't think, that this requirement has to be fulfilled. The given example in the requirement is in my view a defect - the application interprets the given XML fragment wrong. This defect has to be fixed in the application, but *not* in the ODF 1.2 specification ad F3: The proposal partly covers this requirement. It makes a proposal, how <text:numbered-paragraph> items should be handled - see point (1) in the proposal. Because the ODF 1.0/1.1 doesn't specify how <text:numbered-paragraph> lists are formen and numbered, any interpretation is somehow correct. Thus, I think the ODF 1.2 specification doesn't have to take care about this. Thus, I don't think, that this requirement has to be fulfilled. ad F4: The proposal meets the statement, given in the ODF 1.0/1.1 specification about the conversion from <text:list> lists into <text:numbered-paragraph> lists and vice versa. But, it doesn't interprets this statement in such a strict way, as Florian did. I don't think, that a roundtrip conversion has to create 100% the same XML fragment. For me, the roundtrip conversion has to create equivalent XML fragments. In my view the XML fragments, given in Florian's posting http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00216.html are equivalent. ad F5: First, I don't know, if I understand this requirement correct. I think I can support this requirement as it is posted and think that the proposal doesn't violate it. But, the given examples confuses me. In my view an application can decide how it implements the counter. But, the behaviour of this implementation is given by the ODF 1.0/1.1 specification. In my view, the ODF 1.0/1.1 states that the list style, which is applied to the first list item of a certain list level can provide the start value for this list level. Thus, regardless of the counter implementation, the number of the first list item of a certain level equals this start value as long as the list item itself doesn't provide a start value. This, I think, isn't violated by the proposal. ad F6: The proposal meets this requirement. ad M1: I think the proposal meets this requirement. ad O1, O2, O3, O4, O8, O9 (requirements O5, O6 and O7 doesn't exist): The proposal meets these requirements. ad O10: This requirement is comparable this requirement F4, but it doesn't demand, that a roundtrip conversion produces the same XML fragment. The proposal meets this requirement. ad T1, T2, T3, T4, T5: The proposal meets these requirements. Regards, Oliver.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]