Re: [office] list-override proposal

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Hi Florian,

Florian Reuter wrote:
> Sure. I'm well aware of this. But I recall that was a decision carefully taken and carefully discussed.

Yes. But we decided to make the attribute mandatory, and to allow "1.2" 
as the only value. The result is that an ODF 1.1 document cannot be 
validated without errors against the 1.2 schema. Making the list-id 
attribute optional or mandatory does not change that, and therefore 
should not influence the decision whether the attribute should be 
optional or mandatory. That's all I wanted to say.

> 
> Do you have any opinion whether backward compatibility wrt. the number style or wrt. the actual number is more
> important?

Well, I think the problem we face is that there are different 
interpretations of the 1.1 specification regarding the numbering of
numbered paragraphs that have different list styles assigned. We 
therefore cannot say that the one or the other proposal is 
backward-compatible to the ODF 1.1 specification regarding the number or 
the style. We can only say whether it is backward-compatible to a 
certain _interpretation_ of the ODF 1.1 specification regarding the 
number or the style.

To come back to your question: If there would be a single 
interpretation, then I think it would be better to keep the numbering 
than the style. But again, this single interpretation seems not to 
exist. The fact alone that we are discussing this for weeks now seem to 
be proof enough for me. So, I think the best we can do is to simply 
clarify how numbered paragraphs that have different styles assigned 
shall work in the ODF 1.2 specification, based on what we think is the 
best technical solution.

Florian, you have said already that you can consider to give up your 
objections regarding the proposal that has been worked out by the TC and 
has been summarized by Oliver. I hope that I could resolve your 
concerns, so that we can unanimously vote on this proposal today.

Best regards

Michael


> 
> ~Florian
> 
> 
>>>> Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM> 03/09/07 4:38 PM >>>
> 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?
> 
> I really don't mind whether we say the list-id should be mandatory, or 
> whether it should be optional. But we have made already the decison that
> ODF 1.0/ODF 1.1 instances are not valid ODF 1.2 instances by making the
> office:version attribute mandatory, so this is more a question of the 
> style than of backward compatibility.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Michael
> 
> 


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering