[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: comparing requirements against Florian's proposal
Dear TC members, following is my view on the proposal from Florian - see http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00202.html - considering the given requirements from Florian, Michael, Thomas and myself: ad F1: I think the proposal in general meets this requirement. But, I think there could be compatibility problems, because of the proposed change to attribute text:continue-numbering. I my view the ODF 1.0/1.1 specification is clear in this point and the change could result, that applications following this change will continue the numbering of a list, which isn't continued in an application following ODF 1.0/1.1 ad F2 and F3: I don't know, if the proposal meets these requirements, because I don't know, what kind of "legacy" documents exists. I know ODF 1.0/1.1 documents created by OpenOffice.org, but I don't know documents created by other applications. As I already stated, I don't think that these requirements has to be fulfilled. ad F4: I don't think, that the proposal meets this requirement - please see below my example given for O10. As I already stated, I think this requirement interprets the ODF 1.0/1.1 too strict. I would favor that the proposal has to fulfilled the less strict requirement O10. ad F5: As I already stated, I don't know, if I understand this requirement correct, because of the given examples. Thus, my comment here can only be, that I don't, if the proposal meets this requirement. ad F6: The proposal meets this requirement. Comment to the proposal: The samples for the list-override enhancement doesn't have to break the list structure by new <text:list> elements. ad M1: I think the proposal meets this requirement. I feel queasy about the proposed table matching list-ids to list styles, because in my view a list style isn't needed to define a list. ad O1: The proposal meets this requirement. ad O2: The proposal doesn't cover this requirement, but I think the proposal can include such a specification. ad O3: The proposal meets this requirement. ad O4: The proposal doesn't cover this requirement, but I think the proposal can include such clarifications. ad O8: The proposal doesn't meet this requirement. Consider the following XML fragment: <text:list style-name="L1"> <text:list-item><text:p>P1</text:p></text:list-item> <text:list-item><text:p>P2</text:p></text:list-item> </text:list> <text:p>Hello World</text:p> <text:list style-name="L1"> <text:list-item><text:p>P3</text:p></text:list-item> <text:list-item><text:p>P4</text:p></text:list-item> </text:list> <text:p>Hello Earth</text:p> <text:list style-name="L1"> <text:list-item><text:p>P5</text:p></text:list-item> <text:list-item><text:p>P6</text:p></text:list-item> </text:list> This XML fragments contains three list: - list one containing paragraphs P1 and P2. - list two containing paragraphs P3 and P4. - list three containing paragraphs P5 and P6. With the proposal I see no way, how list three could continue the numbering of list one. The usage of attribute text:continue-numbering will not help, because setting it at list three would result, that list three continues list two. ad O9: The proposal doesn't cover this requirement, but I think the proposal can include such clarifications. ad O10: The proposal doesn't meet this requirement. Consider the following XML fragments containing two <text:numbered-paragraph> lists: <office:automatic-styles> <text:list-id-table> <text:list-id-definition text:list-id="id1" text:style-name="L1"> <text:list-id-definition text:list-id="id2" text:style-name="L1"> </text:list-id-table> </office:automatic-styles> ... <text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id1"> <text:p>A</text:p> </text:numbered-paragraph> <text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id1"> <text:p>B</text:p> </text:numbered-paragraph> <text:p>Hello World</text:p> <text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id2"> <text:p>C</text:p> </text:numbered-paragraph> <text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id2"> <text:p>D</text:p> </text:numbered-paragraph> <text:p>Hello Earth</text:p> <text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id1"> <text:p>E</text:p> </text:numbered-paragraph> <text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id1"> <text:p>F</text:p> </text:numbered-paragraph> This XML fragment conforms to ODF 1.0/1.1 plus the changes made in the proposal. List one contains paragraphs A, B, E and F. List two contains paragraphs C and D. To convert this XML fragments into <text:list> lists, three <text:list> structures are needed: - one for paragraphs A and B - one for paragraphs C and D - one for paragraphs E and F It results a similar XML fragment as given above in O8. Now, the third <text:list> structure has to continue the numbering of the first <text:list> structure in order to connect its list items together. But, this is in my view not possible with Florian's proposal. ad T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5: I think all these requirements are meet by the proposal. I'm not sure about T2, probably it contradicts to the examples given by Florian for F5. Regards, Oliver.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]