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

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

Hi Thomas,

if the TC votes NO and writes this clearly in the spec nobody will be able to ask that again.

However atm. the sentence 
<quote>
Numbered paragraphs may use the same continuous numbering properties that list items use, and thus form an equivalent,
alternative way of specifying lists. A list in <text:list> representation could be converted into a list in
<text:numbered-paragraph> representation and vice versa.
</quote>
from paragraph 4.3.4 is not clear whether this means:
a) The lists share the same concept but have different representations.
b) The lists have different concepts but are somehow convertable into each other.

So this needs this to be clarified.

~Florian

>>> Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org> 03/27/07 12:21 PM >>>
On Tuesday 27 March 2007 12:13, Florian Reuter wrote:
> > 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 ;-)

As I just stated in the mail you replied to, the TC has made a decision a long 
time ago.
So you are just repeating the question in hope that asking yet again will 
alter the outcome? I don't think that's a very nice thing to do. Especially 
as you stated that you will honor the decision the TC made. Which is thus 
obviously not true.

If the TC votes NO now; will you ask again in a year?
-- 
Thomas Zander