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;
<text:list text:style-name="L1">
<text:list-item>
<text:p>Main Chapter</text:p>
</text:list-item>
<text:list>
<text:list-item*>
<text:p>Foo</text:p>
</text:list-item>
</text:list>
</text:list>
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
