[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Multiple object renditions proposal
Hello, > > The current specification mixes the definition of a frame and its > attributes (position, size, border, etc.) and the definition of it's > contents. I believe the correct way to modify the specification is to > add an explicit office:frame (or draw:frame) element and move all the > "frame" attributes up to it. It's contents then become 1..n of the > existing "frame" elements > (text-box,image,applet,plugin,object,object-ole) minus all the frame > attributes. The order of these elements under the office:frame element > dictates the applications preference for use with the first child being > the most preferred. [...] > Notice this not only allows OLE objects to have multiple renditions (the > primary use case) but other things like plug-ins, applets, etc. to have > them. This seems a simple and flexible change to me. Yes, it's simpler and more flexible. The only thing I wonder about is that this allows some silly combinations. E.g., what's the semantics of a text frame with two text-boxes, one containing <text:p>Peter</text:p>, the other containing <text:p>Mary</text:p>? Would there be any circumstances in which the second gets displayed? One could try to restrict this in the schema (e.g. allow only one text-box child), but my gut feeling is this isn't worth it; these kinds of restrictions translate badly into XSD and DTD. So I'd say we keep Phil's proposal... we can't keep people from shooting themselves in the foot anyway. Sincerely, Daniel
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]