OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: the simple proposal

Regarding the „simple proposal“ Michael tried to push through last meeting I have the following concerns:

a) I do not think it’s the most complex proposal in the world, but I think there are some open questions. 
b) I’m concerned with the way Sun tries to push this through. I think its bad style not giving me the time in the TC to
explain my points. Calling the agenda item 30sec before closing the meeting and trying to vote on it is bad style.
Furthermore giving the TC the impression that I’m the troublemaker because this is just a simple proposal is not very

My open questions:
a) Why should we add the two “X” to the table. Why only these? Why is text:anchor-type=”paragraph” and
style:vertical-rel=”frame” not valid?
b) I would not know how to implement the proposal in a reader which supports ODF1.0/1.1 and ODF1.2. Consider the
following pseudo-code fragments:

Either one could implement it as:

if (text:anchor-type=”paragraph” and style:vertical-rel=”page”) then
   // use text:anchor-type=”paragraph” and style:vertical-rel=”page” regardless of the ODF version

Or one could implement it as 

if (text:anchor-type=”paragraph” and style:vertical-rel=”page”) then
   if (odf:version=”1.2”) then 
      // use text:anchor-type=”paragraph” and style:vertical-rel=”page”
   if (odf:version=”1.1” or odf:version=”1.0”) then 
      // in ODF 1.0 or ODF 1.1 this was not allowed; so we need to behave like a ODF1.0/1.1 reader
      // here it is unclear which values should be used…

The implications for interop are huge. 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]