OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Hi Dave,

I guess "header" is adopted from the HTML list header element. 

Just my understanding. Not sure whether this is true. 

No problems changing it...

~Florian


>>> "Dave Pawson" 

On Tuesday 21 August 2007 19:12:20 Florian Reuter wrote:
> >  Section 4.1.1.4 indicates that ODF 1.2 allows the author to suppress
> >  heading numbers from the document.
> >
> >  text:is-list-header='true' means don't show the number?
> >
> > There are no semantics here?
> >
> > Could we change the element name to something more meaningful,
> > or use an attribute with a meaningful name.

> No problems changing it...

This is a feature that has also been published in ODF 1.1, so changing is 
not that simple.

-- 
Thomas Zander

On 21/08/07, Thomas Zander 

Hi Dave,

I also assume that the name of the attribute has been chosen because of 
the similarities of a heading having this attribute set to "true" to a 
list header. This may have been a good idea, or not.

However, simply changing the name would have the impact that this 
feature would not be understood by ODF 1.1 applications any more, and 
that the ODF 1.2 specification would not define what the meaning of this 
attribute is for ODF 1.1 documents. So if we change the name, we may 
want to introduce a new attribute actually, and may want to deprecate 
the old one, both having the same semantic. This does not solve the 
backward compatibility issue, but it at least makes sure that an ODF 1.2 
application still understands 1.1 files.

However, before we discuss whether we want to take into account the 
above implications for having a different, maybe in fact better, 
attribute name, I think it would be reasonable to know what the new name 
would be. Do you (or someone else) has a suggestion for this?

Best regards

Michael

Dave Pawson wrote:
> On 21/08/07, Thomas Zander 

On 23/08/07, Michael Brauer 

On 8/23/07, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

On 23/08/07, Michael Brauer <Michael.Brauer@sun.com> wrote:

> However, simply changing the name would have the impact that this
> feature would not be understood by ODF 
1.1 applications any more, and
> that the ODF 1.2 specification would not define what the meaning of this
> attribute is for ODF 1.1 documents.

Is there a general ODF policy on backwards compatibility please Michael?

Yes. On the list enhancement ballot, the TC officially went on record as supporting backward incompatibilities to force software upgrades, just as Microsoft does. Backwards compatibility is secondary to cool new software features that have yet to be identified by anyone that supported the Sun/KDE list enhancement amendment (other than the feature of upgrades being forced on users).  

Best regards,

Marbux

Hi Dave,

Dave Pawson wrote:
> On 23/08/07, Michael Brauer