Re: [office] list-override proposal

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems<Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM>]

Florian Reuter wrote:
> Here is my proposal for the list-override enhancement.
> 
> It should also cover all use cases us the "list-id" proposal, so (in my opinion :-)) there is no need for a list-id. In fact I discourage the use of "list-ids" because:
> * No backward compatibility: A reader which does not understand the text:list-style-override will still be able to correctly number all paragraphs. The only difference would be a different formatting. For example instead of 1. ii. 3. an old reader would generate 1. 2. 3..
> * Using a list-id approach would cause a serious backward compatibility break, since the reader would no longer be able to correctly generate the numbering.
> The association of list styles with a “counter domain” is usually sufficient. By using a style-override the style of the number formatting can be changed. Splitting this relationship between a list style and a “counter domain” would cause unneeded redundancy, since in the “normal” case the list-id and the style-name had to be emitted.
> * By introducing a list-id the transformation between text:lists and text:numbered-paragraphs can be quite complicated. This would be a burden for the implementation.
> 
> I also included some "normative examples" for ODF1.1 lists to avoild from misunderstandings of how lists currently work.
> 
> ~Florian

Hi,

as I told you already on Wednesday, I didn't share your concerns about 
the existing proposal - see 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00172.html - in 
your serious given form.

I also suggested to be more complete and precise in your proposal. 
Namely state, what exactly is the impact for your proposed 
text:list-style-override on the <text:list> element and on the 
<text:numbered-paragraph> element.
I also think, that introducing the "override" attribute at element 
<text:list-item> provides much more flexibility, than to introduce it at 
element <text:list>.

Additionally, I suggested to include the clarifications (2), (4), (5) 
and (6), which are given in the existing proposal - see 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00172.html - in a 
similar form.

The existing proposal also includes the clarification about the counter 
domain for numbered paragraphs - see (1) in 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00172.html -, 
which is currently not clear in the ODF 1.1 specification. See 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00046.html and the 
following thread, which discussed this unclear point in the ODF 1.1 
specification. The proposed new attribute text:list-id has the elegance 
to clarify this in ODF 1.2.
Thus, I suggested, you should include a similar clarification about this 
in your proposal, too.


I'm a little bit disappointed that you haven't got considered any of my 
suggestions, yet.
I think your proposal in its current state isn't complete enough in 
order to compare it with the existing one. Thus right now, I don't think 
your proposal is a true alternative to the existing one.

Under the assumption, that you consider my suggestions, I want to ask 
you, if you can again consider the existing proposal and think about it. 
Please check, if you can support it. It's a compromise, that is 
supported by most of the TC members.


Regards, Oliver.