[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] comparing requirementsagainst Thomas'/David's/Oliver'sproposal
Hi Thomas, > Could you please drop that requirement? Sorry. I can't. I consider this to be essential. I don't want to have KOffice lists and OOo lists in ODF. I want to have one ODF list concept with two textual representations. This is what I want. However it's up to the TC to make a decision whether I'll get it ;-) ~Florian P.S. Someone once told me that numbered-paragraphs where introduced for WW interop. Is that true? >>> Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org> 03/27/07 11:54 AM >>> 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]