[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] list-override proposal
Hi Florian, Florian Reuter wrote: > Hi Oliver, > > /me is also disappointed that I don't really understand your proposal. However /me has not yet given up ;-) > > Regarding the schema you proposed in the name of Thomas and David I have the following question: > > In order to be backward compatible with ODF1.0/1.1 the list-id would have to be optional I guess. Is this mandatory by accident or by intention? It's intention. Read thread starting with message http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00066.html > > The other thing I have problems with is this: > I assume that adding a list-override to the numbered-paragraph would solve the same problem as the list-id, right? In my opinion the new proposed attribute list-id also solves the problem, that the ODF 1.1 specification doesn't specify, how numbered paragraphs form a certain list and thus, how a counter domain is formed for numbered paragraphs. See mailinglist thread starting with message http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00046.html > > So from a practical point of view I consider a list-id to be more harmfull for backward compatibility than a list-override. > By using a list-override the worst thing which can happen is that the number is formatted wrong. > By using a list-id the worst thing which can happen is that the actual number is wrong. > This is why I prefer a list-override. > > So Thomas and you have argued that a list-id is "better" for reasons of "you like it more". And I agree. If we would build ODF1.0 I would agree. However there has been a lot of promise around ODF beeing stable for decades and even centuries. And I just think that a list-override serves this issue better. > > For example. Let suppose we want to express the following numbered paragraphs > 1. Par1 > B. Par2 > 3. Par3 > > With list-id we would get > <numbered-paragraph list-id="1" style:name="L1">Par1</numbered-paragraph> > <numbered-paragraph list-id="1" style:name="L2">Par2</numbered-paragraph> > <numbered-paragraph list-id="1" style:name="L1">Par3</numbered-paragraph> > > and with list-override we would get > <numbered-paragraph style:name="L1">Par1</numbered-paragraph> > <numbered-paragraph style:name="L1" list-override="L2">Par2</numbered-paragraph> > <numbered-paragraph style:name="L1">Par3</numbered-paragraph> > > Correct? > > So let's look what an ODF1.0/ODF1.1 reader would make of this: > > <numbered-paragraph list-id="1" style:name="L1">Par1</numbered-paragraph> > <numbered-paragraph list-id="1" style:name="L2">Par2</numbered-paragraph> > <numbered-paragraph list-id="1" style:name="L1">Par3</numbered-paragraph> > > interpreted by a ODF1.0/ODF1.1 conforming reader would result in > 1. Par1 > A. Par2 (wrong number, right style) > 2. Par3 (wrong number, right style) Why? The current ODF 1.1 specification doesn't specify that all numbered paragraphs, which are applying the same list style form a list. As I already stated above and the postings in the last weeks, the ODF 1.1 specification doesn't specify at all, how numbered paragraphs form a certain list and thus, how a counter domain is formed for numbered paragraphs. Thus, a ODF 1.1 conforming reader could also produce result: 1. Par1 B. Par2 3. Par3 Another ODF 1.1 conforming reader could produce result: 1. Par1 A. Par2 1. Par3 > > and > > <numbered-paragraph style:name="L1">Par1</numbered-paragraph> > <numbered-paragraph style:name="L1" list-style-override="L2">Par2</numbered-paragraph> > <numbered-paragraph style:name="L1">Par3</numbered-paragraph> > > interpreted by a ODF1.0/ODF1.1 conforming reader would result in > 1. Par1 > 2. Par2 (wrong stlye, right number) > 3. Par3 > > So in on case the style is preserved and in the second case the actual number is preserved. Its just my feeling that the number is more important than the style. > > I'm actually suprised that most of the TC members consider the style as more important than the actual number. I was not aware of this. I honestly always assumed that we had an understanding that the number is more important. > > So under the assumption that > a) we make the list-id optional and Then ODF 1.2 specification will still contain the insufficiency, that it doesn't specify, how numbered paragraphs form a certain list and thus, how a counter domain is formed for numbered paragraphs. How do you think, we should solve this insufficiency? Or do you want that the ODF 1.2 specification should still contain this insufficiency? > b) we really consider backward compatibility with the style to be more important than backward compatibility with the right number > I consider to give up my objections. Althought I still think that the right number should be more important than the right style ;-) > > ~Florian > >>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems <Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM> 03/09/07 1:55 PM >>> > 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, sin 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. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]