Re: [office] feature request for enhanced OOo input fields: somesuggestions for discussion

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

Dear TC members,

there are no more comments or questions coming in on this topic. Also, 
nobody else provided new Pros or Cons for the different variants.
Thus, I want to propose to restrict our further discussion on variants 
(4a)/(4b) and (2) as the next step on this topic. Any objections?

I also want to ask the TC members to state their opinions on variants 
(4a)/(4b) and (2) in order to come to a conclusion, for which variant, 
we should work out a concrete proposal.

My personal opinion is that we should choose variant (4a)/(4b) or 
variant (2) to fulfill the made feature request - each of these variants 
would be Ok for OpenOffice.org.


Regards, Oliver.

Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> Dear TC members,
> 
> I'm supporting Michael's variant (4a) and, if wanted, also variant (4b).
> 
> In my opinion there are the following Pros and Cons for the variants:
> 
> Variant (1):
> Pros:
> (P1.1) well-formed
> (P1.2) only contains complete text content elements
> Cons:
> (C1.1) nested <text:p> elements
> (C1.2) not backward-compatible, because <text:meta-field> is new in ODF
> 
> Variant (2):
> Pros:
> (P2.1) can be implemented with existing features. Thus, somehow 
> backward-compatible, because bookmarks are known - content is preserved, 
> but not the meta data information.
> Cons:
> (C2.1) not well-formed
> (C2.2) "enhanced OOo input field" can contain only parts of a table or a 
> list
> 
> Variant (3):
> Pros:
> Cons:
> (C3.1) not well-formed
> (C3.2) "enhanced OOo input field" can contain only parts of a table or a 
> list
> (C3.3) not backward-compatible, because <text:NEW-TEXT-INPUT-START> and 
> <text:NEW-TEXT-INPUT-END> would be new
> 
> Variant (4a)/(4b):
> Pros:
> (P4a/b.1) well-formed
> (P4a/b.2) only contains complete text content elements
> Cons:
> (C4a/b.1) not backward-compatible, because <text:NEW-ELEMENT>, 
> <text:NEW-ELEMENT-PREFIX> and <text:NEW-ELEMENT-SUFFIX> respectively 
> <text:NEW-ELEMENT-LABEL> would be new
> 
> Variant (5):
> Pros:
> (P5.1) well-formed
> (P5.2) only contains complete text content objects
> Cons:
> (C5.1) nested <text:p> elements
> (C5.2) not backward-compatible, because content of <text:input-field> 
> changes.
> 
> The lists of Pros and Cons are the ones, which comes to my mind. Thus, 
> please provide more Pros and Cons, if you have one, or correct my list, 
> if from your point of view a certain Pro/Con is not correct.
> 
> Looking from my point of view at the above given Pros and Cons I've made 
> the following conclusions for myself:
> - C1.1 and C5.1 are *big" Cons in my opinion. Thus, currently I would 
> not choose variant (1) or (5).
> - In my opinion (2) is better than (3), because of P2.1 respectively 
> C3.3. Thus, I would not choose (3).
> - Thus, (2) and (4a)/(4b) been left over. Currently, I would prefer 
> (4a)/(4b), because in my opinion (P4a/b.1) and (P4a/b.2) are more 
> important than (P2.1).
> 
> 
> Regards, Oliver.
>