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

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

Hi Thomas,

I suggest to move this on the agenda for the phone call tomorrow. As you said. It has higher bandwidth.

Talking about technical stuff. What I posted as "my critical problem" is really critical to me. Would you please tell me
your opinion about it?

So the problem is: How do I map the following numbered-paragraph definition to text:list?

<text:numbered-paragraph="id1" style:name="L1"><text:p>H1</text:p><text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:p>Text</text:p>
<text:numbered-paragraph="id1" style:name="L1"><text:p>H2</text:p><text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:p>Text</text:p>
<text:numbered-paragraph="id2" style:name="L1"><text:p>NP1</text:p><text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:numbered-paragraph="id2" style:name="L1"><text:p>NP2</text:p><text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:numbered-paragraph="id2" style:name="L1"><text:p>NP3</text:p><text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:numbered-paragraph="id2" style:name="L1"><text:p>NP4</text:p><text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:p>Text</text:p>
<text:numbered-paragraph="id1" style:name="L2"><text:p>Appendix</text:p><text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:p>Text</text:p>

which will be something like:
1. H1
Text
2. H2
Text
1. NP1
2. NP1
3. NP1
4. NP1
Text
C. Appendix
Text
 
~Florian


>>> Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org> 03/13/07 11:25 AM >>>
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 10:51, Florian Reuter wrote:
> Does this help?
Not really.
You just posted more thought, not reactions.

> > * 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.

> <disagree>
> Michael looking in his crystal ball what ODF1.0 mean doesn't help.
> I disagree that Michael really said "...not always blindly follow the
> things that (previous) office suites do". Since it is the charter of ODF to
> listen very carefully what office suite do :-) Summarize: We agreed to
> focus on 1.2. and not to try to find out what ODF1.0 does any longer.
> </disagree>

What if you don't follow a 'he-said' / 'she-said' kind of argument and 
actually stated what your thoughts are on the subject matter.
Michael wrote it in an email:

On Monday 12 March 2007 15:41, Michael Brauer  wrote:
> Being among those who wrote the original list definition: While office
> application in fact may use the list-styles to set up counter domains,
> it was our intention to abstract from that, and to use the list
> structure as in HTML to set up counter domains instead. So if this
> differs from the office application behavior, it does so by intention.

Do you still disagree that he said that?

As a response to your dismissing the stance of the TC on list-style vs. list. 
We agreed to look at 1.2 for numbered paragraphs; NOT for all things under 
the sun.

> * 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.
>
> <agreed>
> ODF is used in places outside the office suite.
> </agreed>
> <disagree>
> Brinding Latex into play doesn't help, since neither my nor your porposal
> supports what Latex does. They have "counter variables". Not "counter
> domains".
> <disagree>
> <comment>
> Both our proposals can encode HTML lists.
> </comment>
>
> * 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.
> <comment>
> MS Word does this opposite to KWord too.
> </comment>

To these points I have the same objection; you are not replying to the content 
of the points.

Now; I'd really like to hear your reactions to the points stated; not just 
arguing my view of the point. But really on the content of it.
You are capable of arguing on technical merit, I presume :)
-- 
Thomas Zander