OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Dear TC members,

in the following I want to describe my view of list styles and lists in
OpenDocument text documents including the proposal about style-override
and list-id. Additional, I will propose some enhancements/clarifications
of the ODF specification for version 1.2.
My view is strongly influenced by OpenOffice.org, but partly differs
from OpenOffice.org Writer implementation. It's also influenced by the
recent discussions with the ODF TC members:

List styles:
List styles contain definitions for certain list levels. The list level
definitions don't have to be complete. E.g., a certain list style can
contain the list level definitions for list level 2 and 3.
Thus, it can happen, that such a list style is applied to a certain list
item and a missing list level definition is needed to build the contents
of the list label. E.g., a list style only containing list level
definition for list level 2 is applied on a list item on list level 2.
But, it's specified, that the list label should contain the number of
superior list level 1. Thus, list level definition for list level 1 is
needed to determine the number format.
Problem in such a case is, how to determine a certain list level
definition for list level 1. I propose the following solution as a
proposal to the ODF specification 1.2:
- Use the list level definition for list level 1, which is applied the
superior list item on list level 1. If no superior list item on list 
level 1 exists, use a default list style. This is the same default list 
style, which is mentioned in chapter 4.3.1 of ODF specification 1.1 
about list blocks. The same should be applied to numbered paragraphs of 
a certain list.

ODF lists defined by using list blocks - 

On Friday 09 February 2007 11:31, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - 
Sun Microsystems wrote:
> Problem in such a case is, how to determine a certain list level
> definition for list level 1. I propose the following solution as a
> proposal to the ODF specification 1.2:

> - Use the list level definition for list level 1, which is applied the
> superior list item on list level 1. If no superior list item on list
> level 1 exists, use a default list style. This is the same default list
> style, which is mentioned in chapter 4.3.1 of ODF specification 1.1
> about list blocks. The same should be applied to numbered paragraphs of
> a certain list.

I read this a couple of times. But your sentence doesn't parse for me :(
Besides the grammar problems; could you tell me what a 'superior list item' 
is?
The default list style is something that actually needs to be defined in the 
spec. Referring to it without saying what it contains should be fixed :)

Could you write something more clear on what you want the first part of the 
numbering to be?
-- 
Thomas Zander

Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Friday 09 February 2007 11:31, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - 
> Sun Microsystems wrote:
>> Problem in such a case is, how to determine a certain list level
>> definition for list level 1. I propose the following solution as a
>> proposal to the ODF specification 1.2:
> 
>> - Use the list level definition for list level 1, which is applied the
>> superior list item on list level 1. If no superior list item on list
>> level 1 exists, use a default list style. This is the same default list
>> style, which is mentioned in chapter 4.3.1 of ODF specification 1.1
>> about list blocks. The same should be applied to numbered paragraphs of
>> a certain list.
> 
> I read this a couple of times. But your sentence doesn't parse for me :(
> Besides the grammar problems; 

Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker. Could you please point me to 
the grammar problems.

could you tell me what a 'superior list item'
> is?

Yes, I can. I will explain it using the following example:
Think of the following list:
1. Paragraph A (list item on list level 1)
1.1 Paragraph B (list item on list level 2)
2. Paragraph C (list item on list level 1)
2.1 Paragraph D (list item on list level 2)
2.2 Paragraph E (list item on list level 2)
2.2.1 Paragraph F (list item on list level 3)

- list item "1. Paragraph A" is the superior list item of list item 
"1.1 Paragraph B"
- list item "2. Paragraph C" is the superior list item of the list 
items "2.1 Paragraph D" and "2.2 Paragraph E"
- list item "2.2.1 Paragraph E" is the superior list item of list item 
"2.2.1 Paragraph F"

> The default list style is something that actually needs to be defined in the 
> spec. Referring to it without saying what it contains should be fixed :)

Since now, nobody has any concern against this part of the 
OpenDocument specification. If you've got one, please provide an 
appropriate proposal to change this part of the specification.

> 
> Could you write something more clear on what you want the first part of the 
> numbering to be?

Yes, I'll try. I will again use the above given example:
Imagine that the above given list is represented in the OpenDocument 
file format using 

On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:30, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> > Could you write something more clear on what you want the first part of
> > the numbering to be?
>
> Yes, I'll try. I will again use the above given example:
> Imagine that the above given list is represented in the OpenDocument
> file format using 

On Friday 09 February 2007 11:31, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - 
Sun Microsystems wrote:
> ODF lists defined by using list blocks - 

Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Friday 09 February 2007 11:31, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - 
> Sun Microsystems wrote:
>> ODF lists defined by using list blocks - 

On Wednesday 14 February 2007 15:31, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software 
engineer - Sun Microsystems Inc wrote:
> Does my interpretation meets your intentation?

Yap. Exactly.

> Ok, I can also support your view on the start values for a list.
> Repeating: We would define, that each list block can define its own
> start values via its list style. If a list block doesn't define a
> start value, the start value of the surrounding list block is used.

Hmm, that is basically the same proposal in other words, so I still don't 
agree :)
When an xml field is not specified it tends to be read as a default value, the 
value does not change based on the place it is used.
What you seem to want is that you have a style with a startvalue defined to 
take the one of the parent list (superior list).
So;

And L1 defining level1 to start at, say 5 and leaving the start at level2 
undefined (attribute not in xml) this will give us;

5 Main Chapter
5.5 Foo

That doesn't sound right to me.  If the level2 leaves it undefined then it 
should be "5.1".   I suggest you come up with another way to do what you seem 
to want.
I do have to note that the usecase for this seems very contrived and a user 
can just as easily set the level 2 start at 5 manually for those corner 
cases.  Specifically this fails the credo;
 "Make it easy to do the correct, and possible to do the hard"

> We have two list blocks on list level 2. Each of these list blocks
> restarts the counter for the list level 2. These list blocks belongs
> to list level 2. Restarting the counter for a certain list level means
> to set its value to the defined start value.
Yes, agreed. They are technically speaking different (sub) lists. So they 
start at the beginning.

> > So you actually think we should have
> >  1. head
> >  a.a head 2
> > if the list-level 2 has a different definition for the level 1?
>
> Yes.
...
> I think the user should decide - as I already stated above.
Fair enough.

> > This just indicates that you should not have used a text:list structure
> > for the non-continues list, but you should have used numbered-paragraphs
> > for the 3 list items.
> > On top of that; your example doesn't actually need the proposed
> > extention. It would work fine with the current continue. Wouldn't it?
>
> I don't think that I will work this the current specification. The
> current specification only talks about the direct preceding list and
> that its numbering can be continued. I want to extend this to all
> preceding lists.

Yeah, you are probably right about that.
Still, we invented numbered-paragraphs for exactly the situation you want to 
solve, so I'm unconvinced about the extention you want to make being needed.
I'm undecided on this one.

-- 
Thomas Zander

Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 15:31, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software 
> engineer - Sun Microsystems Inc wrote:
>> Does my interpretation meets your intentation?
> 
> Yap. Exactly.
> 
>> Ok, I can also support your view on the start values for a list.
>> Repeating: We would define, that each list block can define its own
>> start values via its list style. If a list block doesn't define a
>> start value, the start value of the surrounding list block is used.
> 
> Hmm, that is basically the same proposal in other words, so I still don't 
> agree :)
> When an xml field is not specified it tends to be read as a default value, the 
> value does not change based on the place it is used.
> What you seem to want is that you have a style with a startvalue defined to 
> take the one of the parent list (superior list).
> So;
> 
> And L1 defining level1 to start at, say 5 and leaving the start at level2 
> undefined (attribute not in xml) this will give us;
> 
> 5 Main Chapter
> 5.5 Foo
> 
> That doesn't sound right to me.  If the level2 leaves it undefined then it 
> should be "5.1".   I suggest you come up with another way to do what you seem 
> to want.
> I do have to note that the usecase for this seems very contrived and a user 
> can just as easily set the level 2 start at 5 manually for those corner 
> cases.  Specifically this fails the credo;
>  "Make it easy to do the correct, and possible to do the hard"
> 

Oh, sorry. There is a mis-understanding, because I wasn't clear enough.
Yes, start values are defined for a certain list level with the list 
level definitions of a list style and can't be applied for other list 
levels. I didn't mean, that (e.g.) the start value for list level 1 is 
taken as the start value for list level 2.

My intention was triggered more or less by the following example, when 
different list styles are used inside a list:


respectively

On Monday 19 February 2007 12:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - 
Sun Microsystems wrote:
> L1 defines that list level 1 starts at 5 and list level 2 starts at 7.
> L2 contains a list level definition for list level 2, but doesn't define
> a start value for list level 2.
>  From my point of view it would make sense that this should give us:
>
> 5. Main chapter
> 5.7. Foo

The same argument applies; I doubt its a good idea to alter the definition of 
not supplying an attribute inherit its value based on where it is used in the 
document.

> Yes, start values are defined for a certain list level with the list
> level definitions of a list style and can't be applied for other list
> levels. I didn't mean, that (e.g.) the start value for list level 1 is
> taken as the start value for list level 2.
>
> My intention was triggered more or less by the following example, when
> different list styles are used inside a list:
> 
>
> respectively
>
> 
> 

That is actually an incorrect conversion. Parag 'Foo' would be another level 
and thus can't reuse the list-id as its a different list.

> In my view L1 is somehow the "leader" of the list. Thus, I came to this
> conclusion.
> But, I could also support, that this case gives us:
>
> 5. Main chapter
> 5.1. Foo

I think that makes much more sense.
-- 
Thomas Zander

Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Monday 19 February 2007 12:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - 
> Sun Microsystems wrote:
>> L1 defines that list level 1 starts at 5 and list level 2 starts at 7.
>> L2 contains a list level definition for list level 2, but doesn't define
>> a start value for list level 2.
>>  From my point of view it would make sense that this should give us:
>>
>> 5. Main chapter
>> 5.7. Foo
> 
> The same argument applies; I doubt its a good idea to alter the definition of 
> not supplying an attribute inherit its value based on where it is used in the 
> document.
> 
>> Yes, start values are defined for a certain list level with the list
>> level definitions of a list style and can't be applied for other list
>> levels. I didn't mean, that (e.g.) the start value for list level 1 is
>> taken as the start value for list level 2.
>>
>> My intention was triggered more or less by the following example, when
>> different list styles are used inside a list:
>> 
>>
>> respectively
>>
>> 
>> 
> 
> That is actually an incorrect conversion. Parag 'Foo' would be another level 
> and thus can't reuse the list-id as its a different list.

I've forgot the text:level attribute.
Correct conversion should be:

On Monday 19 February 2007 15:04, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - 
Sun Microsystems wrote:
> > That is actually an incorrect conversion. Parag 'Foo' would be another
> > level and thus can't reuse the list-id as its a different list.
[]
> The intentation of introducing the new attribute text:list-id is to
> group numbered-paragraphs using different list styles together into one
> list.

My mistake.  I figured this was two lists due to it being two levels.  Its 
not, you are right about the example.

-- 
Thomas Zander

On Friday 09 February 2007 11:31, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - 
Sun Microsystems wrote:
> ODF lists defined by using the numbered paragraph construct -
> 

Hi,

Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Friday 09 February 2007 11:31, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - 
> Sun Microsystems wrote:
>> ODF lists defined by using the numbered paragraph construct -
>> 

Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Friday 09 February 2007 11:31, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - 
> Sun Microsystems wrote:
>> ODF lists defined by using the numbered paragraph construct -
>>