Hi Thomas,
thanks for the question. Here is the status:
| Tables: | |
|---|---|
| * introduce allowCollapse attribute for paragraphs following nested tables to encode WW and HTML-like tables. | Not put up for discussion. |
| * declare sub tables as deprecated | Under discussion in the Accessibility SC. |
| Numbering | |
| * introduce text:level-text attribute to encode arbitrary number formats | Rejected. |
| * introduce text:num-follow-char to encode WW-like numbering | Partly accepted. |
| * introduce text:list-override to encode WW-like numbering | Strongly rejected. |
| * declare style:list-level-properties/@text:space-before as deprecated. Effect can be achieved with paragraph indent. | Rejected. |
| Master-page styles | |
| * add header-first and footer-first to encode WW-like page-styles | Not put up for discussion |
| * modify master-page styles such that WW-like sections can be encoded; current CSS3.0 like text:sections are not applicable | Not put up for discussion |
| * declare the style:next-style-name attribute of master-page declarations as deprecated. | Not put up for discussion |
| Styles: | |
| * allow deriving paragraph-family styles from text-family styles. | Not put up for discussion |
| "Break chars" | |
| * introduce a | Not put up for discussion |
| Fields: | |
| * enhance field support by introducing a <text:field-start/> and a <text:field-end/> element to which metadata can be attached. | Rejected |
| Change tracking: | |
| * introduce change tracking for tables | Not put up for discussion |
| * introduce change tracking on property level | Not put up for discussion |
| Discourage the use of the following OD features for MOOX interop: | |
| * nested frames | Not put up for discussion / Internally communicated as rejected. |
| * current CSS3.0 like text:sections | Not put up for discussion / Internally communicated as rejected. |
| * use fo:break-before instead of fo:break-after | Not put up for discussion / Internally communicated as rejected. |
| * use fo:margin-* for tables | Not put up for discussion / Internally communicated as rejected. |
In general I must confess the OpenDocument TC didn't picked up my discsussion topics... (It's listed as suggested but never has been put for discussion into the agenda). Additionally I had a lot of private communiation where my ideas where communicated as unwanted/rejected.
To get an idea of whats discussed for ODF1.2 take a look at:
2 comments:
Hi Florian,
thanks for your detailed record. I already knew the very informative OpenDocument v1.2 Action Items website. Too bad, that your suggestions weren't picked up in the TC. Hope that it hasn't any ideological or political reasons. - Now, let's go to a further interoperable ODF 1.3 ... ;-)
Florian, I couldn't find any formal requests or proposals for your suggestions that have not been "put up for discussion", just some informal mails where you outlined your suggestions.
If you want to get something on the TC's agenda you must either formally request that or (even better) write a proposal. Of course the latter is "a little bit" ;-) more work but it surely will give you a better attendance.
Post a Comment