[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Status of list discussions/Suggestion how toproceed
Hi Lars, understood. To be clear. For me (F1) Backward compatibility with ODF1.0/ODF1.1 (Loading an ODF 1.1 doc into an ODF 1.2 application) (F2) Backward compatibility with "legacy" ODF docs arose from the fact that ODF1.1 wasn't clearly specified is very important. The only technical solution I see today is to associate counter and styles. If there is a different way to achieve (F1) and (F2) then I'm happy to drop the style<=>counter relationship in the proposal. So again. If the TC states that (F1) and (F2) are not important than it's OK for me. Regarding the charter statement "5. it should keep the document's content and layout information separate such that they can be processed independently of each other" this does not imply that a counter<=>style relationship is not possible. To answer that we'll end up in a philisophically discussion whether a number style is "content" or "style". However at the end it is the TC's decision. Since everybody is tired of the numbering thread --- including myself --- I would like to get the TCs feedback regarding (F1)-(F5). If the TC does not consider these to be important I'll withdraw my proposal immediately and thus clear the way to vote on Oliver'/Thomas' proposal. ~Florian >>> Lars Oppermann <Lars.Oppermann@Sun.COM> 03/26/07 2:47 PM >>> Florian, all... I just wanted to re-state, that I strongly oppose the notion of the specification of lists requiring that the counter is controlled through the style of the list. Our charter calls for content and layout information in ODF documents to be organized in a fashion that allows the content to processed independently. Explicitly linking list semantics to style information would clearly undermine this goal. Bests, Lars Florian Reuter wrote: > Hi Oliver, > > in our internal communication we tried to work out whether there will be a consensus or not. I explicitly pointed you to > the fact that there is a difference between the consensus proposal and the "original" proposal. > We then tried to figure out whether we can find a consensus. It turned out that we couldn't find one. It failed, cause > of the style<=>counter relationship I demanded in order to fullfill my reqs F1 and F2. > > You then posted the evaluation of the reqs wrt. to the consensus altough you internally communicated to me that you > don't see a consensus based on the consensus proposal. > > So basically you took the consensus proposal of the table yourself. > > I understand that everybody is sick and tired of the numbering issue and so I kind of understand your emotional > communication. > > I'm sorry that this ended up on the public TC mailinglist. > > ~Florian > > > >>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems <Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM> 03/26/07 12:27 PM >>> > Florian Reuter wrote: >> Hi, >> >> wrt. to Oliver analysis. >> >> I posted a "consensus proposal" as basis for consensus discussion some time ago. This consens was not apprechiated by >> Oliver and Thomas. So the consensus is "off the table" I guess. >> >> So it makes no sense that Oliver evaluated the reqs wrt. to the consensus proposal, which in fact may have some > problems >> in it. Again, it was meant to be a starting point for a consensus discussion. >> > > I take this statement as very bad habit and as destructive work, because: > - you never takes back your proposal, which you have posted with your > consensus suggestion, until now. > - you didn't tell me, that I had evaluated the in your eyes wrong > proposal on *last Thursday noon (MET)*. I had send you my evaluation of > your proposal in advance before I posted it 8 1/2 hours later on the > mailing list in order to give you the possibility to give me early feedback. > > I'm personally very disappointed about the fact, that I have again find > out, that constructive collaboration with you isn't possible. > >> So when you refer to my proposal please refer to the "original one" and not the "consensus suggestion". >> > > Which one is your "original one"? > The last one, which you've posted - see > http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00262.html -, > doesn't equal any of the previously posted ones. > > > Regards, Oliver. > -- Lars Oppermann <lars.oppermann@sun.com> Sun Microsystems Software Engineer Nagelsweg 55 Phone: +49 40 23646 959 20097 Hamburg, Germany Fax: +49 40 23646 550 http://www.sun.com/staroffice
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]