Re: [office] Proposal for clarification,enhancement andnormative examples for text:list and text:numbered paragraphsin ODF1.2

["Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>]

Hi Oliver,

These are pretty harsh words. 

My reality is different.

It took me more than two weeks just to *understand* your "proposal".

What makes me nervous is that you wanted the TC to vote on it and then it turned out there are problems. That doesn't
increase my confidence.

I layed out five uses case which are important to me:
* Backward compatibility with ODF1.0/ODF1.1
* Backward compatibility with "legacy" ODF docs arose from the fact that ODF1.1 wasn't clearly specified
* 100% roundtrip fidelity between text:list and text:numbered-paragraph
* ODF 1.2 numbering should be independent from an applications counter implementation
* Use case for ODF1.2 list-override enhancement

But according to Thomas these are all incorrect: "But it does not change the fact that
your issues are all incorrect."

> However, I don't want to follow your habit. Thus, I've got a look at 
> your proposal. Following are some comments and concerns. I ask you to 
> consider these and to give reply respectively clarification:

Thanks for looking at my proposal. I'm happy that you where able to understand it in less than 1h.

I will now try to address your valuable concerns and change my proposal.

Especially your point "in my opinion the relationship to the <numbered-paragraph> construct *can't* be based on the list
style" will give me a hard time. 

But I'll try.

~Florian



>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems <Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM> 03/16/07 12:52 PM >>>
Florian Reuter wrote:
> Dear TC members,
> 
> please find attached an alternative proposal for the "Proposal for clarification, enhancement and normative examples
for
> text:list and text:numbered paragraphs in ODF1.2" that the TC may want to consider.
> 
> I'm happy to work on a consensus based on the two proposals.
> 
> ~Florian

Hi Florian,

First, my opinion is not, that you have worked on a consensus. 
Especially, in the last two weeks in my opinion you only posted 
destructive comments and questions about the existing proposal and that 
you didn't answer the questions that other TC members had asked you. I 
didn't recognize any constructive comment/work on the existing proposal. 
  Your posting of the alternative proposal without saying, what are the 
differences to the existing one and what's in your view is better than 
the existing one, confirms my view, that you have no interest in working 
on a consensus.

However, I don't want to follow your habit. Thus, I've got a look at 
your proposal. Following are some comments and concerns. I ask you to 
consider these and to give reply respectively clarification:

- ad your proposed change to chapter "4.3.4 Numbered Paragraphs":
Currently, no list style is needed define a list using the <text:list> 
construct. Thus, in my opinion the relationship to the 
<numbered-paragraph> construct *can't* be based on the list style.

- ad "Add clarification to style name"
I don't understand, what the inserted point clarifies. For me the second 
point already covers the newly inserted point.

- ad "Default style"
I think it's a good idea the define this default style. I can support 
this point of your proposal and it can be also included in the existing 
proposal.

- ad "Sample 6"
Minor error: Paragraph D is on list level 1, but it is intented as list 
items of list level 2

- ad "List-override enhancement proposal"
I don't think, it's a good idea to introduce the list-override 
enhancement as an attribute of <text:list> element. In my opinion it 
unnecessarily breaks the list structure, if the user wants to override 
the list style of a certain list item. Think of the following list:
<text:list text:style-name="L1">
   <text:list-item><text:p>P1</text:p></text:list-item>
   <text:list-item><text:p>P2</text:p></text:list-item>
   <text:list-item><text:p>P3</text:p></text:list-item>
</text:list>
and the intention to override the list style of item P2.
Having the list-override attribute at the <text:list> element, you will get:
<text:list text:style-name="L1">
   <text:list-item><text:p>P1</text:p></text:list-item>
</text:list>
<text:list text:style-name="L1"
	   text:list-style-override="L2"
	   text:continue-numbering=true>
   <text:list-item><text:p>P2</text:p></text:list-item>
</text:list>
<text:list text:style-name="L1"
	   text:continue-numbering=true>
   <text:list-item><text:p>P3</text:p></text:list-item>
</text:list>
Having the list-override attribute at the <text:list-item> element, as 
it is proposed in the existing proposal, you will get:
<text:list text:style-name="L1">
   <text:list-item><text:p>P1</text:p></text:list-item>
   <text:list-item text:style-override="L2">
     <text:p>P2</text:p>
   </text:list-item>
   <text:list-item><text:p>P3</text:p></text:list-item>
</text:list>
The second solution is in my view much better, because it didn't break 
the list structure. The second solution also doesn't need the attribute 
text:continue-numbering.

Another point I don't agree on is to leave out attribute 
text:start-value from the style override.
What's the intention of the special treatment of this attribute?
Think of the following list conforming to ODF1.0/ODF1.1:
<text:list text:style-name="L1">
   <text:list-item><text:p>P1</text:p></text:list-item>
   <text:list text:style-name="L2">
     <text:list-item><text:p>P2</text:p></text:list-item>
     <text:list-item><text:p>P3</text:p></text:list-item>
   </text:list>
</text:list>
I interpret your view in the way, that the start value of list level 2 
of list style L2 isn't used to determine the start value for the list 
level 2 of this list. If this is your view, it somehow contradicts to 
what is said in sub chapter "Start Value" in chapter "14.10.2 Number 
Level Style".


Regards, Oliver.