OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  Re: [office] Question regarding user expectance.

    Posted 03-23-2007 14:56
    Hi Thomas,
    
    you definetly read (F5) wrong. (F5) demands that all applications come to the same numbering.
    
    However our reqs (F5) and (T2) contradict in the following way:
    (F5) demands that apps should come to the same numbering regardless of the internal implementaiton
    (T2) demands that apps should come to the same numbering by specifying how to do numbering
    
    So T2 would e.g. take existing apps like WW and older OOo's out of the game.
    
    Hope this helps,
    
    ~Florian
    
    
    
    >>> Thomas Zander 


  • 2.  Re: [office] Question regarding user expectance.

    Posted 03-23-2007 15:23
    On Friday 23 March 2007, Florian Reuter wrote:
    > Hi Thomas,
    > 
    > you definetly read (F5) wrong. (F5) demands that all applications come to the same numbering.
    > 
    > However our reqs (F5) and (T2) contradict in the following way:
    > (F5) demands that apps should come to the same numbering regardless of the internal implementaiton
    > (T2) demands that apps should come to the same numbering by specifying how to do numbering
    > 
    > So T2 would e.g. take existing apps like WW and older OOo's out of the game.
     
    Can't a document importer convert the ODF list into a list that WW or OOo would display correctly?
    (only talking about display here, not about roundtrip conversion or about further editing of the document)
    
    -- 
    David Faure, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
    Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).
    


  • 3.  Re: [office] Question regarding user expectance.

    Posted 03-23-2007 15:49
    On Friday 23 March 2007 15:55, Florian Reuter wrote:
    > Hi Thomas,
    >
    > you definetly read (F5) wrong. (F5) demands that all applications come to
    > the same numbering.
    
    That's near literally what T2 states.
    
    > However our reqs (F5) and (T2) contradict in the following way:
    > (F5) demands that apps should come to the same numbering regardless of the
    > internal implementaiton (T2) demands that apps should come to the same
    > numbering by specifying how to do numbering
    
    No, you misread.
    T2 does not state the implementation will have to use the ruleset specified by 
    ODF. It says that ODF specifies a ruleset to explain how to interpret the 
    list-items and give them numbers.
    If the two don't match, a conversion should take place. But the point is that 
    we should specify what ODF expects the abstract data to mean since otherwise 
    we come to rely on an implementations counter implementation for the 
    interpretation.
    
    > So T2 would e.g. take existing apps like WW and older OOo's out of the
    > game.
    
    I very sure that is not true.
    Remember that KWord2 is getting a redesigned numbering implementation (but the 
    basic rules are still the same as 1.x).  This has given me a good insight 
    into a lot of ways to do numbering. OOo, for example, has chosen a very 
    different approach to numbering.
    
    When the specification describes how to interpret the abstract list-items 
    there can be a conversion to the application internal manner of numbering, as 
    KWord has been doing in reading OOo and .swx files in the past.
    Thus your fear is misplaced, any implementation with a minimum featureset will 
    be able to read and correctly show ODF documents after the proposal has been 
    accepted.
    
    Have a nice weekend!
    -- 
    Thomas Zander