Re: [office] Proposal: Footnote reference Class

[David Faure <faure@kde.org>]

On Thursday 23 September 2004 16:40, Michael Brauer wrote:
> Dear TC members,
> 
> some time ago we agreed to merge the footnote element <text:footnote> 
> and endnote element <text:endnote> into a single <text:note> element, 
> where a new "text:note-class" attribute specifies whether the note 
> actually is a footnote or an endnote.
> 
> At the same time, we merged the elements for text fields that contain a 
> reference to a foot- or endnote (<text:footnote-ref> and 
> <text:endnote-ref>) into a single <text:note-ref> that does not have 
> "text:note-class" attribute. I in fact don't know what our reasons for 
> not having these attribute for note references were, but I would like to 
> propose to add it to the <text:note-ref> element for two reasons:
> 
> 1. The <text:note-ref> element references foot- and endnotes by names. 
> In the schema, these names are not ID's, but only strings. That means 
> that foot and endnotes may have the same name, and that a 
> <text:note-ref> that does not specify what kind of note it references 
> may become ambiguous.
> 2. Note references may reference notes that are below the reference in 
> the text. In this case, the type of the note might not be known when the 
> note reference is read. This may cause problems for applications that 
> differ between footnotes and endnotes either in its document model or in 
> the view they craete fo a document. This issue might become more severe 
> than we add new note types. The possibility to do so actually was one 
> reason why we merged foot- and endnotes.

So the proposal is to add a text:note-class attribute to <text:note-ref>, where
this attribute can be either "footnote" or "endnote"?
Or do I misunderstand the proposal?

-- 
David Faure, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).