Re: [office] list-override proposal

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

David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007, Florian Reuter wrote:
>> 1. Backward compatibility.
> I don't think backward compatibility matters -that- much for numbered-paragraph that we can't change any behavior.
> Numbered-paragraph was added at koffice's request, and was never implemented in OOo, and it turns out
> that it was under-specified. So I don't see the point in trying to clarify a vague specification in a way that preserves
> a theoretical backwards compatibility with implementations that can't possibly exist.
> We should rather clarify it in a way that actually makes sense and is useable by implementations.
> 
> And if that means adding list-id, then let's add list-id, and let's not care about the non-existant problem
> of backward compatibility. Implementations that actually use numbered-paragraph already (like koffice)
> can take care of it at the application level (using the old algorithms if no list-id is used, and respecting
> list-id if set).
> 

I agree to this statement.


Regards, Oliver.