JavaOne

["Philip Boutros" <Philip.Boutros@stellent.com>]

Will anyone be at JavaOne this week? 
-Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Vogelheim [mailto:Daniel.Vogelheim@sun.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 2:19 PM
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] Multiple object renditions proposal


Hello,

> 
> The current specification mixes the definition of a frame and its 
> attributes (position, size, border, etc.) and the definition of it's 
> contents. I believe the correct way to modify the specification is to 
> add an explicit office:frame (or draw:frame) element and move all the 
> "frame" attributes up to it. It's contents then become 1..n of the 
> existing "frame" elements
> (text-box,image,applet,plugin,object,object-ole) minus all the frame 
> attributes. The order of these elements under the office:frame element

> dictates the applications preference for use with the first child 
> being the most preferred.
[...]
> Notice this not only allows OLE objects to have multiple renditions 
> (the primary use case) but other things like plug-ins, applets, etc. 
> to have them. This seems a simple and flexible change to me.

Yes, it's simpler and more flexible.

The only thing I wonder about is that this allows some silly 
combinations. E.g., what's the semantics of a text frame with two 
text-boxes, one containing <text:p>Peter</text:p>, the other containing 
<text:p>Mary</text:p>? Would there be any circumstances in which the 
second gets displayed?

One could try to restrict this in the schema (e.g. allow only one 
text-box child), but my gut feeling is this isn't worth it; these kinds 
of restrictions translate badly into XSD and DTD. So I'd say we keep 
Phil's proposal... we can't keep people from shooting themselves in the 
foot anyway.


Sincerely,
Daniel


You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/members/leave_workgr
oup.php