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: