[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Proposal for table templates
On Monday 06 October 2003 14:41, Michael Brauer wrote: > Anyway, maybe "row" and "column" (or even > "first-row" and "first-column" would be more intuitive as names for the > attributes "table:topleftcorner" etc., because the attribute then reads > as something like "take the style for the top left corner from the row". Indeed. (hmm, first-row would mean that it would be last-row for bottom corners, so this sounds like more opportunities for getting it wrong if writing it by hand - or when writing converters). I think just 'row' / 'column' is simpler. > I'm also wondering whether we should rename the <table:first-row> to > <table:top-row> etc. to use the same terms within the template. You mean using the same element name, but different attributes? > In addition to this, we might consider to also allow different styles > for even and odd numbered rows or columns, since this is something that > is used very often as well. Good idea. So the updated example would be: <table:table-template table:topleftcorner="row" table:toprightcorner="row" table:bottomleftcorner="column"> <table:first-row table:style-name="graystyle"/> <table:first-column table:style-name="lightgray"/> <table:even-columns table:style-name="lightgray"/> <table:default table:style-name="default"/> </table:table-template> Suggestion: We don't really need both even-columns and odd-columns; if we define one then the other is 'default'. This would also support <table:even-rows> of course. I guess it would also make sense to say that table:default must always be specified. In DTD terms (sorry, I don't know Relax-NG), this could look like (first-row?, first-column?, last-row?, last-column?, even-columns?, even-rows?, default) > OOo takes the precedence rules of XSL-FO/CSS2. That is, a cell > background overwrites a row background, that overwrites a column > background, that overwrites a table background. OK - the file format specification should definitely make that clear. > Maybe we should define > defaults values for "table:tableleftcorner" etc. that match these > precedence rules. Let's see. As I understand it, the precedence rules mean that if both a column and a row style are defined, the corner is defined by its row. So the default value would be "row" if both first-column and first-row are defined. But if first-col is defined and not first-row, then the default value would be "column". This makes sense - it's a rather rare case to say that first-column is red, but topleftcorner should use the default style of the rest of the table. (It makes it slightly more difficult to explain what the default value is, though). > Since many office applications support such table templates, it seems to > be reasonable to me to add them to the specification. The only reason > that they are not part of the OpenOffice.org XML specification is that > OpenOffice.org does not store the templates within the documents. > > A reasonable place for the table templates seems to be the > <office:master-styles> element. <office:styles> seems not be be a > reasonable place, because it is not possible to reference automatic > styles inside this element. This in fact might be useful, because > otherwise all cell styles that are referenced from the table have to be > real UI styles. This is actually what we do currently, and I think it's fine. But I see how not everyone might want to map table templates to real styles, and use automatic styles instead. Thanks for the input. -- David FAURE, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE, Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]