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


Hi Thomas,

> What is so hard to understand here?

I look at the spec and your proposal. I see all the attributes and elements and wonder what they do.

You have to be clear what all these attributes mean. Or you have to remove then.

But simply letting them in and saying "we don't care" is nothing I can agree to. So I'm sorry to say that I can't stop
bothering you about clarification what all these attributes do.


~Florian



>>> Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org> 03/13/07 11:13 AM >>>
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 10:36, Florian Reuter wrote:
> > > However there is still the problem os the default value for continue
> > > numbering.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Why do you insist on interpreting the 1.1 spec while we all agreed to
> > disagree   on what it says.
> So when I understand you correctly you simply want to say "forget
> continue-numbering". Is has no meaning for numbered-paragraphs, right?
>
> ~Florian

No, you misunderstood. You are staring too blindly at the details to see the 
bigger picture.

What I, and others, have been saying is that its irrelevant what you, I or my 
grandmother thinks that this property does.  Or what lists in 1.1 say.
There is no use in discussing it, and I would strongly suggest you stop doing 
so.

Look, its very simple.
KWord is currently the only one actually implementing numbered-paragraphs. And 
it does that in a way that works and KWord can read its own files back and 
restore the document.
OOo is planning to implement numbered paragraphs, and Oliver and me basically 
came to the conclusion that the spec will not allow him to implement it. He 
needs more information.

So; we worked together to create a new standard, one we are both happy with. 
One that allows us to actually exchange documents. As per the idea behind 
ODF.

The situation is simple; Oliver made a proposal writing up the new state of 
affairs and you either accept it or you don't.  Naturally, you can ask 
questions about the proposal and you can offer suggestions.
What you should NOT do is talk about an old version of the spec that everyone 
agrees is not clear enough to use.

What is so hard to understand here?
-- 
Thomas Zander



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