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: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OFFICE-2707) ODF 1.2 Section 5.1No Longer Differentiates In-Line Text

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2707?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=22729#action_22729 ] 

Dennis Hamilton commented on OFFICE-2707:

I think the difference is that ODF 1.0/1.1 suggest that you can find all of the in-line text of a document by mining the paragraph elements.  

In ODF 1.2, we talk about how to obtain the text content of a paragraph element, but we don't seem to say anything about whether we can get all of the (in-line) text content of the document that way.

I am not concerned about the difference, I just wanted to make sure it was on purpose and, if so, be noted in the differences between ODF 1.2 and earlier versions of the standard.

If, as you say, that we want to imply the same as in ODF 1.1, we need to make exceptions for that paragraph content that is *not* part of the text content in any ordinary sense.  I am thinking of paragraph elements inside <text:deletion> elements and also inside <office:change-info>, many flavors of <draw:*> element, <text:note>, <text:index-title>, and header-footer-content of various flavors.

Finally, if you mean to use "paragraph content" as more than the text content of a <text:p> element, we need to be precise about where paragraph content can appear.  

For example, without some precision about "paragraph content," we have to guess about the schema-defined patterns paragraph-content and paragraph-or-hyperlink, which occur in <text:h>, <text:p>, <text:meta>, <text:meta-field>, <text:a>, and <text:span>.   Then there is the schema definited text-content (confusing the issue) that includes a wide variety of patterns and in additional elements, such as <text:section>.

I don't care which way this is all sorted out, as long as we are precise about it.  Any differences from previous standards should then be identified in the appropriate ODF 1.2 Appendix.  

I am simply asking for clarity.  I won't dispute what the clarity is.   Just that it be clarity.

> ODF 1.2 Section 5.1 No Longer Differentiates In-Line Text
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: OFFICE-2707
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2707
>             Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Part 1 (Schema), Text
>    Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 CD 05
>         Environment: This change applies to ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD04 through ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD04-rev09.  Previous versions distinguished in-line text in some manner and would have been subject to OFFICE-2706
>            Reporter: Dennis Hamilton
>            Assignee: Dennis Hamilton
>             Fix For: ODF 1.2 CD 06
> There is no longer any differentiation between in-line text and text elswhere (that is, character data content of <text:h> and <text:p> elements), as is done in ODF 1.0/1.1/IS 26300 and, in modified form, ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD03 and earlier.  The informational indication of text which might be extracted as in-line text content is removed.  
> There is no argument that the differentiation between in-line text and text of other kinds is not that simple.  However, this change is not noted as something of material importance that differs between ODF 1.2 and earlier versions.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


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