Subject: Re: style => name?
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2001 - 23:37:03 CDT
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Paul Rohr wrote:
>
> As explained above, I guess I don't understand why we'd need to choose one
> or the other, since reverting to the original behavior should work just
> fine.
>
> Or am I missing something here?
>
Yes. There are several low level issues that make me not want to
have the "name"/"style" split. In the end
these are held as attributes/properties in the piece table. By making the
name of the style, "name" in the style definitions, and the name of the
style attribute "style" in the document, there is a mis-match between
attribute/properties in the style definitions as opposed to the style
implementations.
I do know that everything is a hell-of-a-lot more straight forward just
living with the same attribute, either "style" or "name" for the character
string referencing the style.
With the split one always has to keep track of whether we're dealing with
the document or definition in order to extract the style name from the
attribute/property string.
Having just one attribute does make maintaining the code easier.
Upon further reflection, I think I prefer Pat Lam's suggestion to fix the
old file format issue upon import and living with a single name within the
document. If we do that I don't need to keep code to fix legacy documents.
If the concenus is to go with "style" rather than "name", I'll do that.
I guess this would make life easier for import/export.
Sorry for all the confusion about this.
Dom, you had a lot to with styles, do you have an opinion? I'll do the
work to revert to the "name"/"style" split if you agree with Paul.
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Sep 08 2001 - 23:37:07 CDT