Re: [office] table:style-name vs table:default-cell-style-name

[Eike Rathke <erack@sun.com>]

Hi,

On Thursday, 2009-07-02 14:11:49 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 15:11 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> > Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> > > A table:table-row can have both or any of the attributes
> > > table:style-name and table:default-cell-style-name
> > > They both seem to set the style of a table-cell in that row that doesn't
> > > have its own style.
> > >
> > >   
> > Is this in response to my note on Office-1566, 
> > table:default-cell-style-name?
> 
> It was inspired by it.
> 
> > 
> > The reason I ask is that the amended text that I have applied reads:
> > 
> > "Cells contained in a row without a table:style-name attribute value and 
> > that are defined by a <table:table:cell> element use this default cell 
> > style."

This is misleading, and was already in ODF 1.1; this was not meant as
cells contained in "a row without table:style-name", but as cells in
a row that (the cells) do not have a table:style-name attribute.

I'll add a comment to Office-1566 with a hopefully better wording.


> By the way , I assume you applied:  ...<table:table-cell>...
> 
> > 
> > This attribute is relevant if and only if the row is missing a 
> > table:style-name attribute.

That's wrong.

> > In that case the table:default-cell-style-name attribute supplies the 
> > name of the style to be applied.
> > 
> > If there is a table:style-name attribute with a value on the row, then 
> > even if there were a table:default-cell-style-name attribute with a 
> > value, it is ignored.

Wrong also. table:default-cell-style-name takes precedence.

Btw, in  17.728.15 <table:table-row>  the draft says:
| The table:style-name attribute specifies a <style:style> element of type
| table-row.

The draft doesn't explicitly state that

The table:default-cell-style-name attribute specifies a <style:style>
element of type table-cell.

I think it should.

Note that OOoCalc does not write cell style information to the table-row
style, just attribution that is applicable to entire rows, such as row
height. However, other implementations may do, which already caused
confusion in the past.

As the table:default-cell-style-name cell attributes take precedence
over those in table:style-name, the correct order would be

style given in table:table-cell
style given as table:default-cell-style-name attribute of table:table-row
style given as table:style-name attribute of table:table-row
style given as table:default-cell-style-name attribute of table:table-column
style given as default-style for table cells.


> So I wonder about 2 things:
> Why are there 2 attributes for table:table-row that do essentially the
> same thing.

I hope this is clarified?

> Why are we jumping over the table level, ie. do not have
> table:style-name or table:default-cell-style-name attributes for
> table:table.

It isn't really needed. In fact, having the default styles at the
columns (and/or rows) is an optimization to not have to write and read
a style information for each cell in case an entire column is formatted
identically. We could define that for the table level as well, but it
wouldn't save much, maybe a few columns' attributes.

  Eike

-- 
 OpenOffice.org / StarOffice Calc core developer and i18n transpositionizer.
 SunSign   0x87F8D412 : 2F58 5236 DB02 F335 8304  7D6C 65C9 F9B5 87F8 D412
 OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

PGP signature