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>


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]