[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]