[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] list-override proposal
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 09:59, Florian Reuter wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > I guess we're getting closer to a common understanding. Great! Do you understand my explanation of the idea to add a property to the numbered-paragraph and another property to the text:list to make them more equal ? > So --- sample 5 seems to express a main difference in understanding. > However my example is not very good. Unfortionately it can be read in two > different ways :-( > > I changed it in the attachements. > > So what we have is > 1. A [L1, continue=false] > 2 .B [L1, continue=true] > 3. C [L1, continue=true] > I. D [L2, continue=false] > II. E [L2, continue=true] > 4. F [L1, continue=*true*] > 5. G [L1, continue=true] > I. H [L2, continue=false] > II. I [L2, continue=true] > > So the continue=true statement on paragraph "F" actually continues the list > identified with the style "L1" (and not "L2"). > > So it this our main difference in understanding? The main difference is probably the auto-continue idea in numbered-paragraphs. I'll try to show why I said you almost never need continue with numbered-paragraphs. The rule; A numbered paragraph automatically continues the last numbered-paragraph on that same level using the same style. If the previous has a different style, then a new list is started (i.e. it does not continue) Which means that paragraph "F" would try to continue paragraph E but fails because of the different style. And will start a new list. Oliver made a proposal to change this in 1.2. The change, when accepted, would continue from the last that has the same style. Which means your logic _would_ work in 1.2 (again, if that proposal is accepted) Do note that your text:list sample5 has the same problem. It will also only work when that proposal is accepted. That means that apart from my example using list-id, there would be a second way to encode sample5. As you did in the updated pdf. There is a big BUT here. Every time you use continue=false, you are effectively starting a new list. Not adding to the previous list. See the attachment which shows 3 of the lists, and all of them have a different left-indent. The B & C share indent, the C&D share indent, but they don't share the indent of each other. That is because they are different lists. (I know; you may need to magnify to see the difference in this example) This means that using the list-id proposal changes one thing pretty fundamentally. list-id: all paragraphs make up one list. continue: each markup is a different list. So, this little detail is important on two areas; 1) data in the odt is not limited to viewing purposes, its also useful for datamining and conversion. There is a real difference in using 3 lists instead of 1. 2) Each list can have a different implied maximum-width. See; http://www.koffice.org/kword/pics/200701-Counters.png Notice how the two lists at the bottom of the left column (starting with 'roman numbering') have the same left-alignment point for the start of each paragraph. But the two lists don't share that indent. They have this because of the widest list-label for each of the two lists being different. The effect of cutting one list into 3 lists means the alignment of the paragraph-content goes out the window. Bottom line; a) continue numbering is something I don't like. It does not encode the actual data, just a way to display it. b) list-id is a required extention that can replace almost all usages of the continue-numbering for numbered-paragraphs. Cheers! -- Thomas Zander
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]