[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Re: TC's discussion on public comment #210 [was: Re:[office] OpenDocumentTC coordination call minutes 2009-03-16 (revised)]
Hi Florian, I have got a simple request: Please answer my questions in my post. Otherwise, it is not clear that I am addressing the same thing as you are talking about. In my honest opinion you are not very clear in your statements: - What do you mean by <"continue" behaviour of paragraph numbering>? - About which two interpretations your are talking about? Further comments/answers are below inline. Florian Reuter wrote: > Hi Oliver, > > Oh no --- not again!!! > > I'm not going to this nightmare again. You present your personal opinion > as a TC opinion here. No. I only presented my opinion, not the TC's one. > > The whole list conversation ended with: There is no single > interpretation --- otherwise we wouldn't have had to correct this in ODF1.2. We have clarified some stuff regarding lists in ODF 1.2, but we had made no change to the specification text of attribute text:continue-numbering. Among other things we clarified for each <text:list> element: <quote the ODF 1.2 specification text> Every list with a list level of 1 defines a list and the counter domain for its list items and any sub list of that list. </quote> Thus, we clarified that a continuation of a list having the same list style as another list is not intented by the ODF specification. This clarification in my eyes indirectly helps to interpret the specification text of text:continue-numbering correctly. You are right there are at least the two interpretations regarding list continuations for ODF 1.0/1.1 - see my posts. (Note: I only expressed my personal opinion about the one implemented by OpenOffice.org 2.x that this is a misinterpretation.) But, I currently do not know, if these two interpretations are the ones you are talking about. > > So we don't even agree that the ODF1.0/1.1 specification allows several > interpretations of the continuation of paragraph numberings? ODF 1.0/1.1 in my opionion allows several interpretations of the continuation of paragraph numberings, when element <text:numbered-paragraph> is used. This is the case, because ODF 1.0/1.1 in my view misses a specification about how certain <text:numbered-paragraph> elements are grouped together to build a list. This has been solved in ODF 1.2 in my opinion. Regarding paragraph numbering, when element <text:list> is used ODF 1.0/1.1 is much clearer, in my opinion. But it also seems it is not clear enough, otherwise OpenOffice.org 2.x would not contain the already mentioned misinterpretation. Thus, I agree to you that ODF 1.0/1.1 allows several interpretations of the continuation of paragraph numbering. But, your statements about this are in my eyes not very clear and not very specific. Thus, it is very hard to address them. I am trying to be little bit more specific about the concerns I have about ODF 1.0/1.1 - that should make it easier to discuss this topic in my eyes. With the questions I have asked you in my last posts, I was trying to find out your specific concerns. Probably, I am talking about something completely different as you, because you are not clear and not specific enough in order to allow me to help on this topic. Best regards, Oliver. > > ~Florian > > > > >>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems > <Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM> 03/23/09 10:44 AM >>> > Hi Florian, > > Florian Reuter wrote: > > Dear TC members, > > > > Wrt to: > > > The TC was in agreement that behavior that is implementation > > > defined in ODF 1.0 and 1.1 cannot be defined in an ODF 1.0/1.1 errata > > > since this would be a substantial change. > > > > So what is the solution then? Do nothing? > > When I recall our last TC's call correct and when I look at the minutes, > further actions are discussed, but due to the end of our TC's call, we > did not decide on any further action. > > > > > I personally think it should be mentioned in an errata that there is a > > problem with paragraph numbering and it should be explained what the > > problem is so that everybody is clear about what constructs to avoid. > > > > From my point of view the purpose of an errata for a released ODF > specification is not to describe problems of this ODF specification - it > purpose is to correct this ODF specification. > Thus, I personally do not think that an errata should contain such an > explanation. > > > Bottom line: For the "continue" behavior of ODF 1.0/1.1 paragraph > > numbering at least two interpretations exists. > > > > I assume that you mean by <"continue" behavior of ODF 1.0/1.1 paragraph > numbering> the list continuation specified by attribute > text:continue-numbering. Is this correct? > > As already mentioned in > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200903/msg00090.html I know > the following two interpretations of text:continue-numbering: > - A wrong one, implemented in OpenOffice.org 2.x - from my point of view > not a valid interpretation, because this is obviously an error of > OpenOffice.org 2.x > - The correct one, when carefully reading the ODF 1.0/1.1 specification. > Which "two interpretations" do you have in mind? > > > Best regards, Oliver. > > > > > >>> Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg > > <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM> 03/23/09 8:58 AM >>> > > [revised minutes: Doug Mahugh did not have voting rights for this > meeting] > > ... > > > > * Discussion of public comments: > > > > - 205: The suggested reference > http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ > > seems to be appropriate, but should be turned into a bibliographic > > reference. > > - 206: Formula issue, already resolved > > - 207: (Formula) proposal > > - 208: (Incompatible) name changes will not be considered for ODF 1.2 as > > well as for ODF 1.0 and 1.1 erratas, but may be considered for ODF-Next. > > - 209: (Formula) proposal > > - 210: The TC was in agreement that behavior that is implementation > > defined in ODF 1.0 and 1.1 cannot be defined in an ODF 1.0/1.1 errata > > since this would be a substantial change. The TC was further in > > agreement that the mentioned issue is resolved in ODF 1.2. Since this > > resolution seemed not to be sufficient for all TC members, it was > > discussed whether additional actions would be possible and reasonable. > > It was stated that vendors in any case could document the behavior they > > have implemented. The discussion was adjourned. > > > > > > * Adjournment > > > > The meeting was adjourned at 5:05pm CET > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- ======================================================================= Sun Microsystems GmbH Oliver-Rainer Wittmann Nagelsweg 55 Software Engineer - OpenOffice.org/StarOffice 20097 Hamburg Germany Fax: (+49 40) 23 646 955 http://www.sun.de mailto:oliver-rainer.wittmann@sun.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ======================================================================= Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (od) - OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]