Part 2: Editorial Fixes ODF 1.3 CS02 #23
Conversation
…' character style
… draw:fill, draw:fill-color, draw:opacity
| <style:paragraph-properties fo:margin-top="0.141cm" fo:margin-bottom="0.141cm" fo:hyphenation-ladder-count="no-limit"/> | ||
| <style:text-properties style:font-name="Liberation Sans" fo:font-family="'Liberation Sans'" style:font-style-name="Regular" style:font-family-generic="swiss" style:font-pitch="variable" style:font-size-complex="12pt" fo:hyphenate="false"/> | ||
| <style:paragraph-properties fo:line-height="normal" fo:margin-top="0.141cm" fo:margin-bottom="0.141cm" fo:hyphenation-ladder-count="no-limit"/> | ||
| <style:text-properties style:use-window-font-color="false" style:font-name="Liberation Sans" fo:font-family="'Liberation Sans'" style:font-style-name="Regular" style:font-family-generic="swiss" style:font-pitch="variable" style:font-size-complex="12pt" fo:hyphenate="false" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
style:use-window-font-color="false" is ignored by LO import filter, so not sure what the point is; if you want to specify a particular color use fo:color attribute
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good to know, my intention was to overwrite the implicit parent default style. We need to reorder/redesign template styles in ODF 1.4. Would keep it for now.
| @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ | |||
| </office:font-face-decls> | |||
| <office:styles> | |||
| <style:default-style style:family="graphic"> | |||
| <style:graphic-properties draw:stroke="solid" svg:stroke-width="0.071cm" svg:stroke-color="#385d8a" draw:fill-color="#4f81bd" fo:wrap-option="no-wrap" draw:shadow-offset-x="0.3cm" draw:shadow-offset-y="0.3cm" draw:start-line-spacing-horizontal="0.283cm" draw:start-line-spacing-vertical="0.283cm" draw:end-line-spacing-horizontal="0.283cm" draw:end-line-spacing-vertical="0.283cm" style:flow-with-text="true"/> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but this should be valid?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Keep in mind, when you are reviewing commit by commit some changes might be added in the end.
For instance, the exchange of the invalid ODF XML attributes occurred very late in the commit chain.
If you want to see the complete difference from the start to the end of the patch, you need to use some other GitHub URL (I do not have at hand atm)...
| @@ -755,13 +755,13 @@ | |||
| <text:p text:style-name="Text_20_body">The OpenDocument specification defines conformance for packages, package consumers, and package producers, with two conformance classes called conforming and extended conforming. This chapter defines the basic requirements for the individual conformance targets.</text:p> | |||
| <text:h text:style-name="Heading_20_2" text:outline-level="2"><text:bookmark-start text:name="__RefHeading__752789_826425813"/>Package Conformance<text:bookmark-end text:name="__RefHeading__752789_826425813"/></text:h> | |||
| <text:h text:style-name="Heading_20_3" text:outline-level="3"><text:bookmark-start text:name="__RefHeading__752791_826425813"/><text:reference-mark-start text:name="OpenDocument Package"/>OpenDocument Package<text:bookmark-end text:name="__RefHeading__752791_826425813"/><text:reference-mark-end text:name="OpenDocument Package"/></text:h> | |||
| <text:p text:style-name="Text_20_body">An <text:span text:style-name="Def">OpenDocument Package</text:span> <text:span text:style-name="ISO_20_Keyword">shall</text:span> meet the following requirements:</text:p> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but here it's actually removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, fixed in the commit today, I overread that every keyword needs to be marked as I made the mistake to assume that no specific "shall" would be omitted. Now fixed!
| </text:list-item> | ||
| <text:list-item> | ||
| <text:p text:style-name="P25">It <text:span text:style-name="ISO_20_Keyword">shall</text:span> contain a file “META-INF/manifest.xml”. This file <text:span text:style-name="ISO_20_Keyword">shall</text:span> meet the following requirements:</text:p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, there where three occurrences all the same wording. Now all fixed.
|
If I am searching in the HTML syntax of part 2, I am encountering still 56 potential ISO Keywords:
Note above the space character at the start of the search string, otherwise, even the already annotated keywords are found! |
For details see: #21
This PR combines checkbox 4 (C4) to checkbox 9 (C9) of #21
C4-C6 are combined as one commit as the solution was easy but the research took two days.