Hi Regina, On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 12:08:06PM +0200, Regina Henschel <rb.henschel@t-online.de> wrote:
No, I do not know any. But I don't know, what MS does, when it converts the own complex shapes to ODF.
Try it yourself: if you have e.g. a triangle containing a table, then they simply write the content of the table (but not the table itself) to ODF, to produce valid ODF. That's a discussion for an other proposal, though.
Yes. But the element text:p is not simple. See the possible child elements listed in 5.1.3<text:p> For your purpose relevant is, that it can have a child <draw:frame>. And this in turn can have all you want, see the list in 10.4.2<draw:frame>. Especially the child <table:table> is possible.
So you propose to add a fake paragraph and a fake frame to hack in a table into a shape content when you describe that in ODF, instead of simply allowing table:table inside e.g. draw:custom-shape? That sounds suboptimal to me. :-) But again, this is not proposed yet, so outside of the scope of the current discussion.
It depends on the children of <text:p> what renderer is needed. That should be detected on parsing. I disagree here. An implementation should be able to analyze the XML tree and react according to existing or not existing child elements.
Please be aware of that LO's xmloff uses a SAX parser, so this is not easily possible. This list is to discuss patches to the LO codebase, not to discuss theoretical problems. ;-) (Or instructing developers what their implementation should do.) However, now that you mentioned that an alternative way to describe a shape with a TextBox is to (mis-)use some existing ODF markup, instead of using an explicit new optional attribute, I reimplemented sw textboxes in xmloff in commit 9835a5823e0f559aabbc0e15ea126c82229c4bc7. It uses the same (somewhat ugly) trick how we detect draw vs sw shapes, just in this case for the content of customshapes. HTH, Miklos
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature