Re: [office] comparing requirements against Thomas'/David's/Oliver'sproposal

[Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org>]

Yes, i suspected as much.

I bet if you look in the archives you might learn the purpose of two distinct 
ways of doing a similar thing. And the very concept of having two already 
means the TC long ago already made up its mind that they do not, in fact, 
represent the same concept.
If that were the case there would not be two separate ways of doing it.

So your requirement to ask for 100% fidelity on round tripping will never 
happen as much as there will never be a perfect fidelity conversion from male 
to female and back.  If there were God would not have made the two separate.

Could you please drop that requirement?

On Tuesday 27 March 2007 11:40, Florian Reuter wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> really no idea ;-)
>
> ~Florian
>
> >>> Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org> 03/27/07 11:26 AM >>>
>
> On Tuesday 27 March 2007 11:13, Florian Reuter wrote:
> > However if the TC views lists in the ways that
> > a) The lists share the same concept but have different rpresentations.
> > then this is no option, since the 100% deterministic roundtrip is not
> > given.
>
> Florian,
> what purpose do the numbered-paragraphs have in ODF?
>
> Why do you think they were added?

-- 
Thomas Zander

PGP signature