Re: [office] Proposal for lists/numbered paragraphs

[David Faure <faure@kde.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 24 March 2003 16:48, Philip Boutros wrote:
> <office:automatic-styles>
>    <style:style style:name="P1" style:family="paragraph"
> style:parent-style-name="First line indent" style:list-style-name="List
> 4"/>
> </office:automatic-styles>
> 
>         <text:unordered-list text:style-name="List 4">
>             <text:list-item>
>                 <text:p text:style-name="P1">One</text:p>
>             </text:list-item>
>             <text:list-item>
>                 <text:p text:style-name="P1">Two</text:p>
>             </text:list-item>
>             <text:list-item>
>                 <text:p text:style-name="P1">Three</text:p>
>             </text:list-item>
>         </text:unordered-list>
> 
> 
> Notice that "List 4" is referenced both by the text:unordered-list and
> by the "P1" paragraph style. What if "P1" referenced a different list
> style? How would I be required to interpret this? 

As far as I understand the OO file format, the closest style is that one that 
overrides the furthest, so the style named in <text:p> is the one that would be used.

If the style for every paragraph specifies P1, then the style associated with
the overall list won't be used at all - is this correct, Daniel/Michael?

> Since the paragraph style already contains the list style information,
> from a rendering standpoint in this example the text:unordered-list is
> completely redundant and the text:list-item is simply defining a list
> level. List level could be easily done with an attribute (which could
> default to 1) producing the following alternative XML. 
> 
> <text:p text:style-name="P1">One</text:p>
> <text:p text:style-name="P1">Two</text:p>
> <text:p text:style-name="P1">Three</text:p>
> 
> This all seems like a lot of extra syntax just so HTML generation can
> eaisly produce <OL> and <LI> tags. 
Not only HTML. Any kind of format that needs structure: XSL, Docbook, ...
Formats that don't need structure can easily get rid of it, that's easier than
figuring out the structure from a non-structured file - although, well, that's 
what word processors have to do when saving, though (figuring out the
beginning and end of each list).

Anyway a conclusion of "it's extra syntax, but it's doable and equivalent"
(which I agree with), doesn't have the same consequences as a conclusion of
"this loses information". That would indeed be a very big problem, but I think
we established now that there is no information loss, right?

- -- 
David FAURE, faure@kde.org, sponsored by TrollTech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).
How to write a Makefile.am for KDE/Qt code:
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/other/makefile_am_howto.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+f0BC72KcVAmwbhARAiDuAKCQ/NiaLOxNB3vJGkNHT/NpF8pJJwCfdEfg
LtAnb429Xq8VWmZcpdN8XTI=
=QWZb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----