Re: [office] Numbering spec

["Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>]

>>> David Faure <faure@kde.org> 11/20/06 10:33 PM >>>

What I don't understand, is what the style-override solution allows to model, that
the style-id solution doesn't allow to model (or vice-versa). Florian says style-override
is more compatible to MSWord, because "the generic approach we took using the 
list-ids can not be mapped to Word". How can this be, if
  text:list-id="MyList" text:style-name="L1" 
(in the first solution) is equivalent to (in the second solution)
  text:style-name="MyList" text:style-override="L1"
?
I don't see the conceptual difference; the first attribute indicates which list
the paragraph belongs to, the second attribute indicates which style formatting
should be used for it. What am I missing?

===========

Hi David,

Today every <text:list>….</text:list> definition only contains one “counter domain”, i.e. whatever you do its “one” list. Please note that the <text:numbered-paragraph> is just a different encoding of <text:list> and <text:list-item> elements. I use the <text:list> encoding, because I think my view can be better explained using this encoding.

Again; every <text:list> element declares the domain of one list.
The first idea we had by introducing a “list-id” element would break this. Then a <text:list> element could contain several lists. To state it different; the list-id approach makes the style of a list “fix” and the counter domain “variable”.
E.g.
<text:list>
<text:list-item text:list-id=”LD1”>
<text:p>Main Chapter</text:p>
</text:list-item>
<text:list>
<text:list-item*>
<text:p>Foo</text:p>
</text:list-item>
<text:list-item*>
<text:p>Bar</text:p>
</text:list-item>
<text:list-item text:list-id=”LD2”>
<text:p>Some kind of annex in this chapter</text:p>
</text:list-item>
<text:list-item text:list-id=”LD2”>
<text:p>Another annex</text:p>
</text:list-item>
</text:list>
</text:list>

* text:list-id=”LD1” attribute is inherited here.

The “style-override” approach is the opposite. It keeps the relationship between <text:list> and the domain intact, but allows to apply different styles to it.

<text:list>
<text:list-item>
<text:p>Main Chapter</text:p>
</text:list-item>
<text:list>
<text:list-item>
<text:p>Foo</text:p>
</text:list-item>
<text:list-item>
<text:p>Bar</text:p>
</text:list-item>
<text:list-item style-override=”Alphanumeric List Style”>
<text:p>Some kind of annex in this chapter</text:p>
</text:list-item>
<text:list-item style-override=”Alphanumeric List Style”>
<text:p>Another annex</text:p>
</text:list-item>
</text:list>
</text:list>

I prefer the “style-override” approach, since e.g. regarding accessibility it is --- in my opinion --- better to know that every <text:list> definition is one list with different styles. But that might not apply. I’m not an expert in that area.

Regarding the list-id approach and WW its simply the case that
a) every WW doc can be mapped to lists with list-id, but
b) not every list with list-ids can be mapped to WW
So my concern is to have a roundtrip problem here.

E.g. you can specify lists of the form
1.1
1.2
2.3
2.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
4.9
5.10
...

where you simply assign one list-id to one level. I don’t think that we need to be able to express these kinds of lists in OD and thus I would recommend using the style-override approach.

~Florian

P.S:
The conversation took place some time ago. I changed the affiliation in the meantime :-)