[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] style name uniquness
David, all, David Faure wrote: > On Monday 04 February 2008, David Faure wrote: >> I know the difference between the two sentences (the one you added is about >> other office:styles elements in other xml files), but I think it should be said in >> a clearer way. Maybe "... <office:styles> elements of the same document, >> including those from other xml files in the package" -- or whatever the right >> terms are for those things in the specification :) > > I found mention of "subdocuments" in section 2.1, this might be a good way of naming > the multiple xml files that represent a single document inside the package? That's a good suggestion. > > We would then say: > > "It is recommended that applications do not generate names that are > used already for styles with the given family contained in the <office:styles> > elements of other subdocuments of the same document." > with a link to "2.1 Document Roots" > > But indeed we have to make sure that people don't read "subdocuments" > as "embedded documents" since this is definitely not what is meant here. > Should we start adding a glossary? > Maybe it get clearer if we do not say just "subdocuments", but name them: "It is recommended that applications generate distinct sets of names for automatic styles stored in the content.xml and styles.xml subdocuments (see section 2.1), and that are also distinct from the names used in the <office:styles> element inside the styles.xml subdocument." With above suggestion, the full text would be: "The style:name attribute identifies the name of the style. This attribute, combined with the style:family attribute, uniquely identifies a style. The <office:styles>, <office:automatic-styles> and <office:master-styles> elements each must not contain two styles with the same family and the same name. In an OpenDocument document, the name of each style is a unique name that may be independent of the language selected for an office applications user interface. Note: For automatic styles, a name is generated during document export. If the document is exported several times, it cannot be assumed that the same name is generated each time. It is recommended that applications generate distinct sets of names for automatic styles stored in the content.xml and styles.xml subdocuments (see section 2.1), and that are also distinct from the names used in the <office:styles> element inside the styles.xml subdocument." Yes, there is some risk that people mis-interpret subdocuments, if they don't check the reference to chapter 2.1. But in that case, they would extend the recommendation to embedded objects, but still would follow the requirement. As for glossary: I have no preference for or against one. We already highlight terms that we define for later use at their first occurrence, so we should do that also for the "subdocuments" too. It then should be rather simply to add a glossary if we want to have one. Michael -- Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering StarOffice/OpenOffice.org Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55 D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500 http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]