[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] <style:default-style>, <style:default-page-layout>
On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 05:59 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: > Dennis, > > 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? Hi Patrick, you lost me here. In your previous message yo cited 15.2: > "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." The "default style (see 15.3)" referred to here is in the document. SO let's say I want to format a table cell: 1) I check the information given in the table. A style for the cell could be given directly in the table cell, and indirectly in the row or in the column specification. [Why not in the table spec? But that's a different question.] 2) I check the default-style of family table-cell contained in the document. 3) I use an implementation defined style. Where did I get lost or confused? Andreas > > 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! > > Patrick > > - 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 > > > > > -- Andreas J. Guelzow <aguelzow@pyrshep.ca>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]