To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4032
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 4 10:05:45 +0000 2008 ------- ama->jkaufmann: That you for your input! I agree that there might be issues with our table handling. But none of your named issues is a problem of our new table model and none of them convinced me to reopen this task. The original problem of this task was the problem that the old table model disallowed the merging of table cells even in simple situations. This has been fixed by implementation of our new table model. So what's your point? 1. You dislike the layout of the 3x2 table (with merged A1:A2 and B2:B3) because it does not show the underlying grid structure. Okay, it's a valid point. But if you have some text in your cells, you will see that the new table model has the expected structure. Or if you enter cell B2 and set the row height to a value like "at least 0,5cm", you will get the expected layout as well. That's the difference to another word processor, it sets the row height in such cases to "at least 0,49cm". So your point is not that we need to change our model again, you expect another value for the row height. Our default for row height is "at least 0,01" which causes these unexpected effect when cells are merged. You could write a new issue and suppose to change the row height after merging cells to another value. It has to be defined in which cases which value has to be chosen. 2. You described a problem with cursor travelling. Yes, that's simply a bug: if you have a merged table cell in the upper left corner of a table the cursor travelling is wrong is some cases. Please submit a new issue for this bug. 3. You do not like the naming convention of our new table model, because - It does not reflect the grid structure (of the whole table). - It handles row and columns differently. Let's have a look at our current naming convention and of your proposed naming: This is our naming... +----------+------------+--------+ | A1 | A2 | A3 | +--------+-+----------+-+--------+ | B1 | B2 | B3 | +--------+-+-+------+-+-+--------+ | C1 | C2 | C3 | +--------+-+-+------+---+--------+ This would be yours... +----------+------------+--------+ | A1 | A3 | A7 | +--------+-+----------+-+--------+ | B1 | B2 | B6 | +--------+-+-+------+-+-+--------+ | C1 | C4 | C5 | +--------+-+-+------+---+--------+ Your first point, it does not reflect the grid structure of the whole table, e.g. cell A3 should be named A7 because its in the 7th column of the table. I prefer A3 because its in the third column of its row. But that's only my personal taste. Your second point is valid, too. There is a difference between row and columns. So there might be people who prefer your naming convention and there might be people who prefer the current one. But there is no bug, no disfunctionality visible for me, so no reason to reopen this issue again. If you want, you could write a new issue where you propose your naming schema. Conclusion: This issue (i4032) should not be reopened, it is fixed. You found a new (small) bug in cursor travelling. You propose to change the row heights when cells are merged. You propose to change the naming convention of cells. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
