We're amenable to extensions to the existing format. Moreover gnumeric is going to be making a jump to a new wrapper format shortly at which time I hope to make larger scale changes to the xml representation and would appreciate any feedback you have on limitations or irritations in the current schema.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 02:39:05PM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > My thought would be to make the changes acceptable but not required and > notify the gnumeric folks > (http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumeric-list) about the > extensions. They might be interested in > implementing them. For the actually SCHEMA, create a different schema > based on the original and mark > files which use the extensions as being compliant to that schema and not > the one hosted at/by gnumeric... > > -Andy > > Danny Mui wrote: > > > > >There are some features that HSSF supports that gnumeric does not, one > >instance is setting fonts for the header/footer (among others). This I'd be interested in a list of the others. Adding this would be simple and would give me some insight into what sorts of features real users are looking for. > >is currently a need for my project I'm working on and I'm wondering > >how I should go about implementing this. > > > >Should I extend the schema to accomodate these new features? > > > >I extended the schema to support a few things so far: > >1) Added an 'inches' unit designation to pass-through the values for > >margins since the 'in' unit requires conversion. Requires conversion by what ? > >2) Added a &[FILE] attribute for the header/footer since excel > >supports it but my version of gnumeric does not. I just added it in about 10 seconds. The extension will be in 1.1.15, and is trivial enough that I could back port it to be in the next stable release 1.0.12. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
