Re: [office] style:list-style-name and list-id

["Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>]

Hi Thomas,

just to add my statement to your good summarization of your statements :-)

* We aggreed no longer to try to figure out what the indent of ODF1.0/1.1 was. So having Michael looking in the crystal
ball doesn't help here. At least that was common sense in the call. The mantra was "focus on 1.2".

* My goal is to have one "idea" of lists in ODF with two textual representations namely text:list and
text:numbered-paragraph. 

* MS Word relies on the 1:1 relationship between counter domain and list style. So its different to KOffice too:-)

* Having mentioned Latex. Latex actually does something different than what you and me are proposing. They have internal
"counter variables". So in my opinion neither my nor your proposal fits to the Latex model. Actually Word has "counter
fields" too. 

* Having mentioned HTML. I believe that HTML list can be encoded in your as well as in my proposal.

So at the end I really believe that is all about the "1:1 relationship between counter domain and list style".

So we're sitting here having the two ideas of doing
1. P1
B. P2
3. P3

your is
<numbered-paragraph list-id="1" style-name="L1"><p>P1</p></numbered-paragraph>
<numbered-paragraph list-id="1" style-name="L2" continue-numbering="true"><p>P2</p></numbered-paragraph>
<numbered-paragraph list-id="1" style-name="L1" continue-numbering="true"><p>P3</p></numbered-paragraph>
and mine is
<numbered-paragraph style-name="L1"><p>P1</p></numbered-paragraph>
<numbered-paragraph style-name="L1" style-override="L2" continue-numbering="true"><p>P2</p></numbered-paragraph>
<numbered-paragraph style-name="L1" continue-numbering="true"><p>P3</p></numbered-paragraph>

I really believe that at then end its a TC decision whether ODF has a "1:1 relationship between counter domain and list
style" or not.

~Florian

P.S.
I'll continue adding the continue-numbering="true" only we reach consensus about the default value :-)

>>> Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org> 03/12/07 5:55 PM >>>
On Monday 12 March 2007 15:14, Florian Reuter wrote:
> Interresting. I must admit that my understanding of lists is different. In
> my world a list-definition is directly attached to a counter domain. I'm
> polluted by my work with WW and WP lists for sure. I guess thats why I
> don't really understand the KOffice way of numbering.
>
> So I agree with you. We both seem to have our view on lists resp.
> numbered-paragraphs. At the end we have to select one for ODF.

To summarize from our talk on the call;
* Michael stated the intend of ODF1.0 was to indeed have list-domains be 
separate from markup as we follow known standards, not always blindly follow 
the things that (previous) office suites do.

* ODF is used in places outside the office suite. In places like HTML, TeX and 
other languages that aim to separate content from markup the concept of lists 
being discoupled from the markup they use has been folllowed.

* KWord has had the concept of list-domain being separate from style for a 
long time.
* OpenOffice does the opposite to KWord in that respect.

To bring things in perspective; numbered-paragraphs have been introduced to 
ODF by the request of KOffice. For them to work properly we need this 
list-from-style separation or we can't save our internal structures into ODF. 
We actually always had the impression that lists were defined separate from 
markup in ODF.  It is what our users tell us they need.

Florian; you gave me the impression you were more surprised by this 
perspective then in disagreement. Please reflect upon the above and reply 
giving us your opinion on this.  Each point with an "Agree" / "I think 
different, because" would be much appreciated.
-- 
Thomas Zander