On 22 June 2015 at 18:53, Peter Kelly <pmke...@apache.org> wrote: > My first instinct on hearing “heading level 7” is that perhaps the author > of such a document should reconsider their structure ;) I never go more > than three for normal documents. The designers HTML assumed 6 would be > enough, but Word allows up to 9 levels. > > Having >6 levels can be handy for outlining (in particular Word’s “outline > view” mode), and in that instance I can see it would be useful. > > Regardless of it’s merits or otherwise, I think we should support this, > but it will complicate things somewhat given that the existing logic > generally assumes only six levels. Any levels above that, in the Word > filter at least, are simply given their style name but otherwise considered > normal paragraphs. > > Having a <div style=“corinthia-level-X”> is a good first approach (and I > suggest using the corinthia- prefix in places where we have our own special > behaviour; currently the prefix is uxwrite- in many places but that should > be changed). However, it’s possible in Word to have multiple heading styles > at the same outline level - for 1-6 this is fine, because we just give the > style name and can express the outline level in HTML based on the tag > number (h1 through h6). When we go to having <div> or <p> elements with a > style name, there is no way to express the outline level as part of that, > at least none that is immediately obvious to me. I’m not sure what the best > solution here is for handling arbitrary depths. > > In theory we may also have file formats which support more than 9 outline > levels (not sure what ODF’s limit is, but it may be possible with other > formats). In that case we need to figure out how that would be expressed in > terms of a Word document. > > Another possible solution is to just use h6 for every header of level > greater than 6. While this “loses” information in the resulting HTML, I > view it as a reasonable compromise in the sense that it fits within the > semantics of HTML, and due to the use of bidirectional transformations, the > heading level could remain the same (that is, 7 or greater) during update > if the level has not been changed to < 6 during editing. >
but if we convert from OOXML to ODF this way we loose information. It is no fun when the intermediary (in this case HTML) imposes the restrictions. I do not recommend to flatten the level at the height of H6. rgds jan i. > > — > Dr Peter M. Kelly > pmke...@apache.org > > PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key> > (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966) > > > On 22 Jun 2015, at 8:22 pm, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I want us to be consistent, not have one standard for header 1-6 and a > > different for the rest. > > > > we can also use <p style=headerX> that is more or less the same as <div > > style=headerX>. Only real difference > > is that <div> do not have a default style. > > > > rgds > > jan i. > > > > On 22 June 2015 at 15:18, Gabriela Gibson <gabriela.gib...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> IIRC, Peter said to just make a <p> here. > >> > >> But I think I like Jan's idea because we can then later change things > >> easily without losing the original marker of H7+. > >> > >> G > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:15 PM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> On 22 June 2015 at 14:59, Ian C <i...@amham.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> I have just been debugging what appeared as a strange error. > >>>> > >>>> Turns out due to a document header of level 7. HTML only has 1 -6. > >>>> > >>>> So when I increment passed 6 I ended up in HTML_HEAD... which explains > >>>> what I was seeing. > >>>> > >>>> But how should we manage header levels greater than 6? With our own > >>>> class and a div or something else? > >>>> > >>> my preference would be a div statement, linked to our own style (which > of > >>> course might be modified by the document). > >>> > >>> rgds > >>> jan i. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I see in the Word code there are some limit checks when receiving > code. > >>>> I looked at the Word the generation code but couldn't quite follow it, > >>>> getting tired. > >>>> > >>>> Looks like it is limited too. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Ian C > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Visit my Coding Diary: http://gabriela-gibson.blogspot.com/ > >> > >
