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

["Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow@pyrshep.ca>]

On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 11:47 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Andreas,
> 
> Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> >   
> I suspect it is my confusion or at least we have different assumptions.
> 
> You are assuming (perhaps correctly) that the "default-style" obeys all 
> the rules we specify for styles *and* is recorded in the document.

Yes I do. I think the reference to 15.3 which talks about the
<default-style> element bears this out.

> 
> That is to say that all implementations have a "default-style" that in 
> the absence of a style in the document that it will use for elements 
> missing a style.

Not quite. Let's say Gnumeric creates a table. The user specifies a
default cell style. That style would be recorded in the file as the
default-style. It may differ from default-style in other files created
by Gnumeric. So the default-style recorded is not implementation
specific.

> 
> On your #3, I don't read 15.2 "implementation specific value" as meaning 
> an "implementation defined style" in your words.

I don't think it's the same either. I think a "style" comes into being
by being recorded in the ODF file. The standard (correctly) does not
force an a[[;ication to create or specify a default-style.

> 
> I haven't worked this through but it seems to me that we should say:
> 
> 1) Use style information as given (subject to the limitations we define 
> on styles)
> 
> 2) Use a "default-style" that is recorded in the document but defined by 
> the implementation. (also subject to the limits we define on styles)
> 
> No third option. I don't see what we gain by saying "implementation 
> specific value." That seems to me to take it out of the range of the 
> styles we have defined.

We (correctly imho) do not require default-styles to be defined. So it
is worth while to say what happens if an element has no style or
default-style associated with it.

Clearly (?) that should be implementation defined since there is no
other specification in the file. While one could say that that isn't
necessary since in absence of any specification in the file the
implementation has to do something, it may be good to point out that
this is dependent on the implementation that reads the file. 
> 
> Does that help?

perhaps

> 
> Hope you are having a great weekend!

and you too

Andreas

> 
-- 
Andreas J. Guelzow <aguelzow@pyrshep.ca>