[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] OpenDocument lists - my view included are some proposals
Thomas Zander wrote: > On Wednesday 14 February 2007 15:31, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software > engineer - Sun Microsystems Inc wrote: >> Does my interpretation meets your intentation? > > Yap. Exactly. > >> Ok, I can also support your view on the start values for a list. >> Repeating: We would define, that each list block can define its own >> start values via its list style. If a list block doesn't define a >> start value, the start value of the surrounding list block is used. > > Hmm, that is basically the same proposal in other words, so I still don't > agree :) > When an xml field is not specified it tends to be read as a default value, the > value does not change based on the place it is used. > What you seem to want is that you have a style with a startvalue defined to > take the one of the parent list (superior list). > So; > <text:list text:style-name="L1"> > <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> > </text:list> > And L1 defining level1 to start at, say 5 and leaving the start at level2 > undefined (attribute not in xml) this will give us; > > 5 Main Chapter > 5.5 Foo > > That doesn't sound right to me. If the level2 leaves it undefined then it > should be "5.1". I suggest you come up with another way to do what you seem > to want. > I do have to note that the usecase for this seems very contrived and a user > can just as easily set the level 2 start at 5 manually for those corner > cases. Specifically this fails the credo; > "Make it easy to do the correct, and possible to do the hard" > Oh, sorry. There is a mis-understanding, because I wasn't clear enough. Yes, start values are defined for a certain list level with the list level definitions of a list style and can't be applied for other list levels. I didn't mean, that (e.g.) the start value for list level 1 is taken as the start value for list level 2. My intention was triggered more or less by the following example, when different list styles are used inside a list: <text:list text:style-name="L1"> <text:list-item> <text:p>Main Chapter</text:p> </text:list-item> <text:list> <text:list-item text:style-overide="L2"> <text:p>Foo</text:p> </text:list-item> </text:list> </text:list> respectively <text:numbered-paragraph text:style-name="L1" text:list-id="myList1" Main Chapter </text:numbered-paragraph> <text:numbered-paragraph text:style-name="L2" text:list-id="myList1" Foo </text:numbered-paragraph> L1 defines that list level 1 starts at 5 and list level 2 starts at 7. L2 contains a list level definition for list level 2, but doesn't define a start value for list level 2. From my point of view it would make sense that this should give us: 5. Main chapter 5.7. Foo In my view L1 is somehow the "leader" of the list. Thus, I came to this conclusion. But, I could also support, that this case gives us: 5. Main chapter 5.1. Foo >> We have two list blocks on list level 2. Each of these list blocks >> restarts the counter for the list level 2. These list blocks belongs >> to list level 2. Restarting the counter for a certain list level means >> to set its value to the defined start value. > Yes, agreed. They are technically speaking different (sub) lists. So they > start at the beginning. > >>> So you actually think we should have >>> 1. head >>> a.a head 2 >>> if the list-level 2 has a different definition for the level 1? >> Yes. > ... >> I think the user should decide - as I already stated above. > Fair enough. Ok. > >>> This just indicates that you should not have used a text:list structure >>> for the non-continues list, but you should have used numbered-paragraphs >>> for the 3 list items. >>> On top of that; your example doesn't actually need the proposed >>> extention. It would work fine with the current continue. Wouldn't it? >> I don't think that I will work this the current specification. The >> current specification only talks about the direct preceding list and >> that its numbering can be continued. I want to extend this to all >> preceding lists. > > Yeah, you are probably right about that. > Still, we invented numbered-paragraphs for exactly the situation you want to > solve, so I'm unconvinced about the extention you want to make being needed. > I'm undecided on this one. > Yes, I also think that numbered-paragraphs are the best for such cases. My proposal has the intention to assure that both list definitions (<text:list> and <text:numbered-paragraph>) are convertible into each other. Regards, Oliver.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]