OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [office] list-override proposal


Sorry. I don't see you a list-id will solve the problem of the default value for continue-numbering?

Or do you say "continue numbering has not effect any longer?".

~Florian


>>> David Faure <faure@kde.org> 03/12/07 9:35 PM >>>
On Monday 12 March 2007, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 17:18, Florian Reuter wrote:
> > I did include the "continue-numbering" on every par 'cause I couldn't find
> > a consensus with Oliver what the default value is.
> > Thomas had this concern of always repeating "continue-numbering" too.
> >
> > I updated my samples and set the default of continue-numbering to "true"
> > (to which Oliver disagrees :-))
> 
> My interpretation of the standard was that it was not either true nor false, 
> it was dependent on a lot of other items.
> 
> Lets forget these examples and look at the future. In the list-id example the 
> continue-numbering can be defined much more strictly as we don't need it 
> anymore for specifying the domain of a list. List-id does that.

Yes, exactly. I think this proves the need for list-id: instead of complex rules based
on continue-numbering, defining which numbered-paragraphs belong together should
simply be done with list-id.

And I think Sample 4 shows very well why numbered-paragraph is nicer than text:list:
a non-numbered paragraph should simply be a <text:p>, not something that can be
written 3 different ways depending on invisible(!) structural information.

-- 
David Faure, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]