https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154799
Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|NOTOURBUG |--- --- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #2) > The specification of style:script-type attribute (section 20.358 in part 3 > of ODF 1.3) has clear definition of "complex" script type. > It lists all UNICODE ranges, which belong to "complex" script type. I didn't say the definition was unclear, I said it was invalid. > Please do not mix the definition of a term in a standard with the meaning of > a term in general. Once these definitions impact behavior rather than mere wording, the mixture is has already occurred; and that's doubly the case when the terms themselves are used in the UI. One way to address this bug is encapsulate the use of these terms and spare the users from having to recognize and accept them. > If you think, that the ODF standard needs to be improved in this area, the > LibreOffice bugtracker is the wrong place for your remarks. The correct way > is a mail to [email protected]. I'll write there, as well - but if there's a problem with ODF, LO should not simply carry it forward uncritically. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
