OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [office] feature request for enhanced OOo input fields: somesuggestions for discussion


Dear TC members,

I'm supporting Michael's variant (4a) and, if wanted, also variant (4b).

In my opinion there are the following Pros and Cons for the variants:

Variant (1):
Pros:
(P1.1) well-formed
(P1.2) only contains complete text content elements
Cons:
(C1.1) nested <text:p> elements
(C1.2) not backward-compatible, because <text:meta-field> is new in ODF

Variant (2):
Pros:
(P2.1) can be implemented with existing features. Thus, somehow 
backward-compatible, because bookmarks are known - content is preserved, 
but not the meta data information.
Cons:
(C2.1) not well-formed
(C2.2) "enhanced OOo input field" can contain only parts of a table or a 
list

Variant (3):
Pros:
Cons:
(C3.1) not well-formed
(C3.2) "enhanced OOo input field" can contain only parts of a table or a 
list
(C3.3) not backward-compatible, because <text:NEW-TEXT-INPUT-START> and 
<text:NEW-TEXT-INPUT-END> would be new

Variant (4a)/(4b):
Pros:
(P4a/b.1) well-formed
(P4a/b.2) only contains complete text content elements
Cons:
(C4a/b.1) not backward-compatible, because <text:NEW-ELEMENT>, 
<text:NEW-ELEMENT-PREFIX> and <text:NEW-ELEMENT-SUFFIX> respectively 
<text:NEW-ELEMENT-LABEL> would be new

Variant (5):
Pros:
(P5.1) well-formed
(P5.2) only contains complete text content objects
Cons:
(C5.1) nested <text:p> elements
(C5.2) not backward-compatible, because content of <text:input-field> 
changes.

The lists of Pros and Cons are the ones, which comes to my mind. Thus, 
please provide more Pros and Cons, if you have one, or correct my list, 
if from your point of view a certain Pro/Con is not correct.

Looking from my point of view at the above given Pros and Cons I've made 
the following conclusions for myself:
- C1.1 and C5.1 are *big" Cons in my opinion. Thus, currently I would 
not choose variant (1) or (5).
- In my opinion (2) is better than (3), because of P2.1 respectively 
C3.3. Thus, I would not choose (3).
- Thus, (2) and (4a)/(4b) been left over. Currently, I would prefer 
(4a)/(4b), because in my opinion (P4a/b.1) and (P4a/b.2) are more 
important than (P2.1).


Regards, Oliver.


-- 
=======================================================================
Sun Microsystems GmbH    Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
Nagelsweg 55             Software Engineer - StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
20097 Hamburg
Germany
http://www.sun.de        mailto:oliver-rainer.wittmann@sun.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sitz der Gesellschaft:
Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]