Subject: Re: 0.9.3 blocker? -- Re: style => name?
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 03:10:10 CDT
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, John L. Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 02:14:27PM +1000, Martin Sevior wrote:
> > > Can you send me an example abw doc with a "name" attribute in a <p> or
> > > <c> tag?
> > >
> >
> > Hi John,
> > On second thoughts we may not have these. I'll check the
> > "apply" and update code in the styles dialog to see.
> >
> > The "name" may only appear is the style definition header block in the
> > *.abw files.
>
> So what was the problem with it being there that prompted you to make
> the change? As Paul said, it's supposed to be "name" in the style
> definitions (to give each style a "name"), and then it should be "style"
> in all text blocks (<p>s), to refer to a specific "style" (which may
> even be a built in). I'm just very curious to know why you saw it
> necessary to change this - I thought our previous code dealt
> appropriately with <style name="..."> and <p style="...">. It had
> always seemed to work.
>
It worked to first order. I wasn't sure about second order. Some of the
screwy bugs that Randy's seeing may be due to "name" leaking into the
main document. Or more likely the style => name conversion hasn't gone
correctly.
I'm coming round to the view that this should be reverted.
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 03:10:25 CDT