https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163789
Mike Kaganski <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG --- Comment #4 from Mike Kaganski <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #2) > So, what do we have in there? > > 1. An opening XML header with 42 attributes, 40 of which are xmlns values. > The other two are "office:version" and "office:mimetype". And what is the problem in these 40? In fact, these are one of the few (two more down the road) that really could be minimized - because their set is basically fixed, to simplify the code; but how do they harm *in reality*? Note that I ask this, and - possibly - one of a *couple* people who really *does* clean up FODF files when preparing minimized bug docs and unit tests; so - I really could benefit from that - but it would never outweigh the complexity of the code. > 2. A 30-line <config:config-item-set config:name="ooo:view-settings"> element > 3. A ~115-line <config:config-item-set > config:name="ooo:configuration-settings"> element. And they must be: these settings are what defines the ... settings; including compatibility, view, etc. Some of them are controllable using settings (and may be not exported). > 4. A 4-line <scripts> element, linking to an ooo:libraries-wrapped URL. Again: this is a boilerplate for simplicity. Could be stripped, at the expense of code complexity. Doesn't hurt. > 5. A 9-line <font-face-decl> element, which declares 7 fonts, while only one > is used No - please stop this useless argument. As long as the font is in a style, it is used. Period. > 6. ~105-line <styles> element, containing 17 distinct styles, including a > graphics style, outline numbering, footnote and endnote configuration, a > color scheme that's unused, ... And styles **are** the document content. No matter what you think. > 7. A 13-line <body> element, mostly containing a 7-line > <text:sequence-decls> element with unused sequences. The last boilerplate for simplicity. Could be stripped, at the expense of code complexity. Doesn't hurt. > (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #1) > > Why? > > For several reasons: > > 1. Much of that is not necessary to reproduce the document as created and > entered. Wrong - as said, not much. The three elements I marked as "could be stripped" constitute very little. > 2. Some of that has no effect even in principle and is just redundant No. > 3. The user may not intend for all of this information to be embedded into > the document. Then they shouldn't use WYSIWYG tools. In general, the repeated "I don't like much information that user is not expected to look at" is tiresome and useless. It is a complex document format, created by a complex software, which has much more interesting things to do, than playing "let's make it eye-pleasing internal code to please one geek's eye" games. It's not even "if someone volunteers to do, then please" - for the most part, it is simply no-go. Remove a style, and you break someone's workflow. Remove a setting, and you break the document behavior / look. I simply close this useless issue. I know that you like to reopen, and try to force your PoV no matter what. Of course, I won't engage into that again - if you do, it's your playground. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
