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: Re: [office] <style:default-style>, <style:default-page-layout>


Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 1. Andreas: It is indeed the case you raise that I had in mind.  If a
> "default" is explicit in the file, put their by the generating application,
> we are fine.  When the generating application does not do that, and the
> consumers each have their own approach (the implementation specific value)
> that is taken silently, that is the problem.
> 2. Patrick: With regard "there isn't any 'otherwise an implementation
> specific value is taken.'"  I don't understand.  I am looking directly at
> the second full paragraph of 15.2 in cd01 rev06 and the statement is right
> there.  It is also there in cd02, approved since my original remark.  So the
> statement is there.  So what is it you are saying there isn't one of?  What
> do you think that sentence means?
Note questioning the presence of the sentence but how to distinguish 
between a "default stylesheet" (which is simply some implementation 
defined set of values, not a stylesheet in the sense we define them in 
ODF) versus "an implementation specific value..." How are those different?

Both are determined by the implementation.

Neither one is confined by the styles we define in ODF.

We go to some lengths to define stylesheets, how they are referenced, 
their values, etc.

What part of those definitions are applicable to "default stylesheets?" 
So far all I have found is the reference to "default stylesheets" having 
a style family name. They are not defined as part of the document but as 
part of the implementation. (Or so I have been told.)

Then my question becomes how is that different from "an implementation 
specific value?" Seems to me that all an implementation defined 
stylesheet can be is a set of "implementation specific values." Yes?

BTW, I think you are putting too much weight on "approved." All that 
means is that the TC was happy for this to issue as a draft for further 
review and comment. A milestone if you will, nothing more or less.

Hope you are having a great weekend!

>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas J. Guelzow [mailto:aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca] 
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 13:58
> To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [office] <style:default-style>, <style:default-page-layout>
> On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 16:46 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>> Dennis,
>> Just now getting to this in my effort to clear editorial notes.
>> Note from 15.2, the language you cite:
>>> "If a value for the formatting property has not been found, then the
> default
>>> style (see 15.3) that has the same family as the style that has been
>>> referenced initially is checked. If it specifies a value for the
> formatting
>>> property, then this value is taken. Otherwise an implementation specific
>>> value is taken."
>> There isn't any "otherwise an implementation specific value is taken."
>> By definition the "default" style is defined by the implementation.
>> Unless you think we are saying:
>> 1. Defined styles
>> 2. Default style (defined by the application)
>> 3. Application specific value but not as part of a style definition.
>> I am not sure I see #2 and #3 as being different, except that we do 
>> refer to default styles belonging to families.
>> I do agree that what you say is a way out, although it isn't the way I 
>> would prefer. My preference being, perhaps in ODF-Next, to define styles 
>> so that some similarity in appearance can be had across conforming 
>> implementations. Appearance really has very little, in my view, to do 
>> with interoperability but that viewpoint has not carried the day. ;-)
> Hi,
> I think that you may be missing the point that there may be 2
> implementations involved. So we have the following list of priorities:
> 1. defined style
> 2. default-style contained in ODF file (and apparently put there by the
> implementation that created the file. That default style may originally
> been implementation dependent but has now been fixed for this file.)
> 3. default style not contained in the ODF file that depends on teh
> implementation reading/displaying the file.
> Andreas

Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

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