Re: [office] Re: [office-comment] Re: my =?utf-8?q?comments=09on=09the=09numbering_spec_proposal_discussed_by?==?utf-8?q?_David_F=2E?= =?utf-8?q?_andFlorian=09R=2E?=

[David Faure <faure@kde.org>]

On Monday 22 January 2007 15:29, Florian Reuter wrote:
> Wow --- thats interresting.
> 
> Let's assume the lists will restart, then I would expect:
> 1.
> 1.A.
> A.i.
> i.a.
> 
> since:
> LS1=< {"1"/1}, {"1"/2}, {"1"/3}, {"1"/4}, … >
> LS2=< {"1"/1}, {"A"/2}, {"1"/3}, {"1"/4}, … >
> LS3=< {"A"/1}, {"i"/2}, {"1"/3}, {"1"/4}, … >
> LS4=< {"i"/1}, {"a"/2}, {"1"/3}, {"1"/4}, … >

I agree. But this is exactly why I hate the fact that list styles define all 10 levels in one style. It just makes no sense.

In order to get
 1.
 2.A.
 3.ii.
 4.c.
I would like to be able to define
 LS1=< {"1"/1} at depth 1 >
 LS2=< {"A"/2} at depth 2 >
 LS3=< {"i"/2} at depth 2 >
 LS4=< {"a"/2} at depth 2 >
This is what KOffice does: a list level defines one level, not 10.
Then the number of the parent paragraph that appears due to display-levels=2 always has
the same formatting as the one that was actually used for that paragraph. Referring
to a paragraph called "1." as "A." makes no sense!

Of course you can get the above result by making sure all list levels start with "1"/1 but that's just
duplication of information.

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