Paul Bolger wrote:
"Information loss" is not very accurate, I should have said something
like "unpredictable behaviour". Here's just one example of such
unpredictable behaviour:
...
I can live with that. The problem here is with the people writing the
docs. I might have to see if I can work out some way of forcing them
to use a logical structure. Beyond switching to a CMS I'm not sure
what the answer is, if people insist on making new styles every time
they want text to look different, and use asterisks to make lists,
it's always going to be a nightmare converting their documents.
Yes the problems of "WYSIWYG" editors are that they produce poorly
structured and inconsitent content. OOo is a massive improvement over
other editos, but it still suffers.
I always intended to create a version of OOo that only had the styles
availablt tat I wanted to suppor, never got around to it so far. That
would solve many of the problems. It would leave a few too, such as
using '*' for bullets, but at least that will render reasonably wll in
the majority of output formats (it would fall apart in some renderings
though, such as voice).
<!--+
| Instructional step
+-->
<xsl:template match="text:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:style-name='P2']">
<p class="instruction">
<xsl:apply-templates/>
</p>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>
...
P2 is defined in the SXW How-To template as an instruction. This is
clumsy, it should be a named style not an OOo defiend style (which is
P2). We need to change the How-To template document
sorry, you've lost me here - the How-To template?
Open the sxw samples (wither the writer or the how-to) and you will see
that they define specific styles, such as "Forrest: Instructional Step",
which is the one that causes the arrow. These documents can be used as
templates for new documents. I'm not sure why they have never ben saved
as ODT files, I seem to remember a discussion abut a bug somewhere.
Ross
