Re: [office] list-override proposal

[Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org>]

On Thursday 08 March 2007 16:27, you wrote:
> I simply don't follow your underlying assumption that ODF1.1. does not
> correctly speficy the behaviour between text:list and
> text:numbered-paragraph.

Our previous hints to you for reading the archive was specifically about;
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200702/msg00046.html
and the rest of the thread.
What this email did is try to make clear what the 1.1 release of ODF stated. 
And as you may see there are quite some little things that are not clear 
there.
Oliver-Rainer proposed in that thread a clarification and we talked about the 
points and reached a consensus on what the expected behavior is for those 
cases where the spec is not clear.

> So before adding a new attribute I really wanna help you to get clear
> understanding what the current ISO standard says. And the statement
> "Numbered paragraphs may use the same continuous numbering properties that
> list items use, and thus form an equivalent, alternative way of specifying
> lists. A list in <text:list> representation could be converted into a list
> in <text:numbered-paragraph> representation and vice versa." is pretty
> strong to me.

It is a good point, and the intend is and has always been there. Oliver and me 
just found out that two applications developers reading the same spec came to 
different conclusions. So we should clear up the spec to make it say what we 
intend.

> So whatever we decide for ODF1.2. we must also clarify what the ISO
> standard ODF1.0 / ODF1.1. actually says, right? Since there may be others
> out there implementing ODF1.0/1.1. who might need this clarification too.

As I stated rather bluntly in my last email (sorry for that outburst) I think 
you should not start a new interpretation but first join in on the one that 
oliver and me agreed on.
Its not very useful for everyone to just give his view without first trying to 
understand the already posted views and stating what he agree and does not 
agree with.
In other words; if we don't listen before speaking, we will never agree.

So, please. Dig out the linked thread and tell us what you agree to and what 
you don't. And state where we should change our minds with proper arguments.

Thanks!
-- 
Thomas Zander

PGP signature