From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 19/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Format internals -> content.xml 1.1 merge with OpenDocument/Specifications 1.2 Page name 1.3 Not enough context? 2 Please work from the spec. 3 On including limitations

[edit] Format internals -> content.xml

This XML snippet seems rather weird:

<text:h text:style-name="Heading_2">This is a title</text:h>
<text:p text:style-name="Text_body"/>
<text:p text:style-name="Text_body">
   This is a paragraph. The formatting information is
   in the Text_body style. The empty text:p tag above
   is a blank paragraph (an empty line).
</text:p>

Since all the elements are in the namespace referred to by the text prefix, it is unnecessary to explicitly use the prefix on the attributes as well. Is this really how OpenOffice writes the XML files? This would be the simplest and most appropriate:

<text:h style-name="Heading_2">This is a title</text:h>
<text:p style-name="Text_body"/>
<text:p style-name="Text_body">
   This is a paragraph. The formatting information is
   in the Text_body style. The empty text:p tag above
   is a blank paragraph (an empty line).
</text:p>

update - this goes for meta.xml as well.

Daniel Schierbeck 09:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here’s an extract from a NeoOffice 1.2 (OO 1.1.5) which verifies the example (as to efficiency, I can’t answer that…) I created a new text document and set the first paragraph to heading 2. Line breaks in the XML are mine:

 <text:h text:style-name="Heading 2" text:level="2">This is a title</text:h>
 <text:p text:style-name="Standard"/>
 <text:p text:style-name="Standard">This is a paragraph.</text:p>

Barefootguru 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge with OpenDocument/Specifications

A sub-article in the main article OpenDocument/Specifications may do the job of keeping the main article within reasonable size. Louie 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

This page was moved from OpenDocument technical specifications to OpenDocument Specification without any discussion, as far as I can tell. I think the new name is vaguer and does not conform to the MoS. Wmahan. 18:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it (it's OpenDocument technical specification now). Wmahan. 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither page brings up the article now. 9point9 20:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not enough context?

Does anyone know why this article was tagged as such? Shinobu 07:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please work from the spec.

I've changed a number of details on this page; one of which was out-of-date, but the rest of which were factual errors. Please base comments about OpenDocument on the standards document itself, rather than the output of OpenOffice.org, wherever possible. AlexHudson 10:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On including limitations

User:HAl included some text about not being able to put tables into presentations without "raw text or embedding spreadsheets", I assume based on the comments of Brian Jones. This doesn't make sense within the context of the specification, and isn't correct. The issue at hand with tables is that they're not supported as drawable objects. I've updated the text to reflect this.

Please, do bring across limitations highlighted by OpenDocument critics, but please ensure that they're accurate - this is an article on the technical specification, not on the criticisms levelled at OpenDocument. There is a subtle difference there ;) - AlexHudson 22:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)