Re: [office] table:filter-condition extension proposal

[Eike Rathke <erack@sun.com>]

Hi Kohei,

On Tuesday, 2007-06-12 10:56:40 -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote:

> The original motivation for proposing this format:
> 
>     <filter-set-item table:value="John Doe"/>
> 
> instead of the other format:
> 
>     <filter-set-item>John Doe</filter-set-item>
> 
> is to make it in line with the 'table:value' attribute of the current
> table:filter-condition element, which is formatted like this:
> 
>   <filter-condition table:field-number=1 table:operator="="
>           table:value="Doe"/>
> 
> Making the value an attribute will, IMHO, make it consistent with the
> current filter-condition semantics, although in practice it would not
> matter too much one way or the other.
> 
> What do others think of this?

I'm completely unbiased. Thinking that a bit further though: do we need
a <filter-set-item> element at all? Wouldn't a table:set-item attribute
do as well? As in

    <filter-condition table:field-number=1 table:operator="="
    table:value="John Doe" table:set-item="John Doe"
    table:set-item="Jane Doe"/>

I may be completely wrong on this of course.

  Eike

-- 
 OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS