On Tuesday 06 March 2001 21:08, shaheed wrote:
> Thomas, Nicholas,
> 
> I realise I did not make myself clear in my original note with regard to 
> bullets etc. I regard the exact numbering type (bullets, roman, decimal, 
> etc.) as a purely display issue. The internal numbering and depth structures 
> do not change between
> 
> a.
> b.
> b.1.
> b.2.
> c.
> 
> and
> 
> o
> o
>  1.
>  2.
> o

Yes - note that this is already the case (AFAIK).

> Also, I suggest that there is never a reason to use a manual override for 
> heading numbers except for the first paragraph in a file This should be 
> sufficient to support the chapter-per-file style of book writing without 
> risk of obscure errors. However, I'm open to persuasion on this.

Yes, I think it's good enough too (changed my mind).

> Now, I hope that my original description make more sense. Using my 
> terminology, the example Thomas gave looks like this:
> 
> > 1.1 Header          - heading numbered, depth = 1
> >                             - several unnumbered
> > a list item            - list numbered, depth = 0, display = lowercase
> > b list item            - ditto
> > c list item            - ditto
> >   1 list2 item        - list numbered, depth = 1, display = decimal
> >   2 list2 item        - ditto
> > d list item            - list numbered, depth = 0, display = lowercase
> >   1 list3 item        - list numbered, depth = 1, display = decimal
> >   2 list3 item        - ditto
> >     2.1 list4 item   - list numbered, depth = 1, display = decimal
> >     2.2 list4 item   - ditto
> > e list item            - list numbered, depth = 0, display =lowercase
> >
> > 1.2 Header         - heading numbered, depth = 1
>
> The algorithms I provided will get the above numbering correctly, I think.

The only change compared to the current code is the distinction between
"list numbered" and "heading numbered", right ?

> Thomas is probably right in that the depth for heading numbered paragraphs 
> can be inferred from the style. We don't have this for lists as Thomas 
> observes - perhaps I should fix that first? 

I don't agree with "you have to use a style to get a list", as it was in the old KWord.
It prevents applying a list to an existing paragraph formatting, and it looks overly
complex for nothing. In the new KWord you can apply a list numbering to a
paragraph, without needing a style for that. Why change that ?
Why try to get from the style something you already have in the paragraph
settings ?

> > Just use numbers as I did in my example above. These numbers then reflect
> > the amount of digits used. So the 2.1 in my example above should have depth
> > 2.
> Well, the current code is zero-based, but this is easy to change.
Well, it's internal, isn't it ?
Ah, maybe the UI reflects this - but then it's only the UI that needs to be fixed.

> > > Any preceeding unnumbered paragraph is skipped as if it did not exist.
> >
> > No, in most document people make lists that simply count from 1 to n, and
> > start a new list after a number of unnumbered paragraphs. So doing what you
> > suggest here breaks the normal usage of a lot of users.
> 
> No, the presence of  the unnumbered paragraph (using my terminiology) is what 
> allows your "flows" to be deduced. I believe what I suggested will support 
> your example.

Unnumbered paragraphs should be skipped by heading numbering, no
doubt there. But the question is, what about normal lists - as Thomas said
(and as MSWord does), you need to reset the list numbering there.
So they have to be handled differently.

> I think we are actually in quite good agreement in concept (the terminology 
> is a bit different), so I will look to code up the design I had in mind.

Thanks !

-- 
David FAURE, david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://perso.mandrakesoft.com/~david/, http://www.konqueror.org/
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today

_______________________________________________
Koffice-devel mailing list
Koffice-devel@master.kde.org
http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel