Re: [office] list-override proposal

[Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org>]

On Monday 12 March 2007 14:13, Florian Reuter wrote:
> I’ve been thinking about the list-id/list-override proposal the whole
> weekend. Since we’re going to vote today and list-id/list-override I just
> want to summarize my main objectives:
>
> 1. Backward compatibility.
> The list-id changes the actual number of a paragraph. 

Thats false. No idea why you would think that.

> The list-id makes is 
> impossible for old readers compute the right number.

Thats false. Even without the list-id old readers can not compute the right 
number. Its not specified how to do that.

> 2. Roundtrip fidelity.
> The algorithm described by Oliver to convert between list-id and
> numbered-paragraph contains non-deterministic choices. So the conversion
> between list-id and numbered-paragraph will be non-deterministic which
> results in a very bad user experience. (My opinion :-))

We since clarified the ideas a lot, and the algorithm may be adjusted.  But, 
please be more specific when you give your opinion.  I'd like to know if is 
an informed opinion.

> 3. List-id and list-override solve the same use cases.

I think you still misunderstand if you think this.

> For reasons of 1-3 I can not support the current proposal which mixes
> list-ids and list-overrides.

I can understand that, unfortunately you have misunderstood the issues and 
failed to open any dialogue over corrections we pointed out to your 
interpretation over the last week. I find it highly unfortunate that we 
arrive at a point where its a "yes"/"no" match because there is no open 
dialogue over the actual issues at hand.

> I’ve been persuaded by ODF users on conferences etc. that
> stability of the file format is the most important thing. This is the only
> reason I object to the list-id approach. 

Then please answer the email from Michael this morning which tells you how 
your idea that its not backwards compatible is incorrect.

I, and others, have opened a dialogue with you over this issue several times, 
and the only thing I see next is another email with the same issues being 
repeated that have been corrected in the reply.
Can you please continue a dialogue by replying to the issues addressed in the 
various mails on this subject?

So far it's more like we're entered in a 4x100m relay, and you're doing the 
backstroke.  That's not working.
-- 
Thomas Zander

PGP signature