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