comparing requirements against Florian's proposal

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software engineer - Sun Microsystems Inc<Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM>]

Dear TC members,

following is my view on the proposal from Florian - see
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00202.html -
considering the given requirements from Florian, Michael, Thomas and
myself:

ad F1:
I think the proposal in general meets this requirement.
But, I think there could be compatibility problems, because of the
proposed change to attribute text:continue-numbering. I my view the
ODF 1.0/1.1 specification is clear in this point and the change could
result, that applications following this change will continue the
numbering of a list, which isn't continued in an application following
ODF 1.0/1.1

ad F2 and F3:
I don't know, if the proposal meets these requirements, because I
don't know, what kind of "legacy" documents exists. I know ODF 1.0/1.1
documents created by OpenOffice.org, but I don't know documents
created by other applications.
As I already stated, I don't think that these requirements has to be
fulfilled.

ad F4:
I don't think, that the proposal meets this requirement - please see
below my example given for O10.
As I already stated, I think this requirement interprets the ODF
1.0/1.1 too strict. I would favor that the proposal has to fulfilled
the less strict requirement O10.

ad F5:
As I already stated, I don't know, if I understand this requirement
correct, because of the given examples.
Thus, my comment here can only be, that I don't, if the proposal meets
this requirement.

ad F6:
The proposal meets this requirement.

Comment to the proposal:
The samples for the list-override enhancement doesn't have to break
the list structure by new <text:list> elements.

ad M1:
I think the proposal meets this requirement.
I feel queasy about the proposed table matching list-ids to list
styles, because in my view a list style isn't needed to define a list.

ad O1:
The proposal meets this requirement.

ad O2:
The proposal doesn't cover this requirement, but I think the proposal
can include such a specification.

ad O3:
The proposal meets this requirement.

ad O4:
The proposal doesn't cover this requirement, but I think the proposal
can include such clarifications.

ad O8:
The proposal doesn't meet this requirement.

Consider the following XML fragment:
<text:list style-name="L1">
    <text:list-item><text:p>P1</text:p></text:list-item>
    <text:list-item><text:p>P2</text:p></text:list-item>
</text:list>
<text:p>Hello World</text:p>
<text:list style-name="L1">
    <text:list-item><text:p>P3</text:p></text:list-item>
    <text:list-item><text:p>P4</text:p></text:list-item>
</text:list>
<text:p>Hello Earth</text:p>
<text:list style-name="L1">
    <text:list-item><text:p>P5</text:p></text:list-item>
    <text:list-item><text:p>P6</text:p></text:list-item>
</text:list>

This XML fragments contains three list:
- list one containing paragraphs P1 and P2.
- list two containing paragraphs P3 and P4.
- list three containing paragraphs P5 and P6.

With the proposal I see no way, how list three could continue the
numbering of list one. The usage of attribute text:continue-numbering
will not help, because setting it at list three would result, that
list three continues list two.

ad O9:
The proposal doesn't cover this requirement, but I think the proposal
can include such clarifications.

ad O10:
The proposal doesn't meet this requirement.

Consider the following XML fragments containing two
<text:numbered-paragraph> lists:
<office:automatic-styles>
   <text:list-id-table>
     <text:list-id-definition text:list-id="id1" text:style-name="L1">
     <text:list-id-definition text:list-id="id2" text:style-name="L1">
   </text:list-id-table>
</office:automatic-styles>
...
<text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id1">
   <text:p>A</text:p>
</text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id1">
   <text:p>B</text:p>
</text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:p>Hello World</text:p>
<text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id2">
   <text:p>C</text:p>
</text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id2">
   <text:p>D</text:p>
</text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:p>Hello Earth</text:p>
<text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id1">
   <text:p>E</text:p>
</text:numbered-paragraph>
<text:numbered-paragraph text:level="1" text:list-id="id1">
   <text:p>F</text:p>
</text:numbered-paragraph>

This XML fragment conforms to ODF 1.0/1.1 plus the changes made in the
proposal.
List one contains paragraphs A, B, E and F. List two contains
paragraphs C and D.

To convert this XML fragments into <text:list> lists, three
<text:list> structures are needed:
- one for paragraphs A and B
- one for paragraphs C and D
- one for paragraphs E and F
It results a similar XML fragment as given above in O8.
Now, the third <text:list> structure has to continue the numbering of
the first <text:list> structure in order to connect its list items
together. But, this is in my view not possible with Florian's proposal.

ad T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5:
I think all these requirements are meet by the proposal.
I'm not sure about T2, probably it contradicts to the examples given 
by Florian for F5.


Regards, Oliver.