Subject: Re: Version 0.9.0
From: Justin Bradford (justin@ukans.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 25 2000 - 19:18:09 CDT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, sam th wrote:
> Note that this format is based on my current understanding of how we will
> format fields in the file format. This may not be correct.
That is more or less right. I do not anticipate requiring the <c>foo</c>
inside of the <field> tag, however. Properties are inherited from the
surrounding <c> tags. In fact, until we have logic to preserve intrafield
formatting, it would be best to do:
<c><f type="foo">bar</f></c>
Although, formatting implied by the field, will be preserved, of course.
I won't support the preservation of manual field formatting in the initial
implementation. The logic for doing so is complex. Recent releases of Word
make inconsistent stabs at this. It seems 2000 does an ok job.
> However, I think this exposes a weakness in the way we currently format
> the field in the file format. I would prefer something along these lines:
>
> <field>
> <outline-label level="2" format="numerical"/>
> <c>1.</c>
> </field>
Why do you prefer that?
Justin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Apr 25 2000 - 19:18:17 CDT