Yeah, I didn't see specific mention (other than the figure of the
options page) in the WG, Chapter 2, which is why I didn't think it was
too critical. There are several mentions in Chapter 9, however. It
originally threw me when I was creating tables for testing, and they
weren't appearing with heading cells. When I got to the section on
vertical alignment it specifically mentions the functionality provided
by the numbers alignment options.
I also wasn't 100% sure, because I thought I may have monkeyed around
with the settings at one point when I was trying something previously,
so I fired up OOo 3_m2 on my Mac, which was installed only for looking
at what the default install looks like. I haven't booted over into
Windows XP yet, but my installation there is the same as for my Mac,
with no changes to any of the defaults that come with OOo.
I didn't think of switching to metric settings, but I suspect your
theories are right on that Jean.
Time-wasting, or geeking-out, take your pick--though I prefer the
latter, as it has less of a negative connotation in my mind. ;)
Thanks,
Sak.
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
Sak wrote:
Just a quick note, I'm not sure how critical you think it is, but
there are some differences in the default options for Tables between
OOo 3 and 2.x. Of note, Heading, and its associated Repeat on each
page, options are no longer default.
If the 2.x chapter on tables (or Ch2 on setup) mentions the defaults,
then we should certainly change the references to whatever is correct
for V3. If the defaults are not mentioned, then I have no strong opinion
on whether or not to mention them. I could make a case either way. :-)
Also, the Alignment option under Number recognition isn't selected by
default any longer either, meaning that numbers are treated as regular
text in cells now, as opposed to aligning to the bottom-right.
Hmmm... mine (Windows version) shows with Number recognition on, but I'm
not sure whether I'm seeing the defaults or not. I rarely use the
Windows installation, but I normally turn that setting off as one of my
first customisations, so the fact that it's on confuses me.
Oddly, the Insert cell - Column default is now .98" instead of 1.00".
I normally keep my measurements in cm; that setting shows as a nice
"round" number: 2.50cm. When I changed the measurement selection to
inch, it shows 0.98".
I just opened 2.4.1 and it's the same.
AFAIK, most of the developers are in Europe, so I wouldn't be surprised
that measurements would generally be fairly round numbers in cm (or mm),
but not in inches or points or whatever.
Hmmm... perhaps the default depends partly on what's been chosen in
Language Settings?
Isn't all this fascinating, in a time-wasting way? ;-)
Glancing at Chapter 2 of the WG, the only thing that might need
changing is Figure 25, but perhaps not critical. I haven't looked at
the GSG though, or whether any of this is mentioned in any detail there.
IIRC the GSG doesn't cover Writer-specific options in the setup chapter,
but I'll check the chapter on Writer itself to see if it mentions
anything about table options.
Thanks for spotting all these!
--Jean
