|
Each of the three attributes attributes applies to one particular source of index entries. An index can have multiple sources. That means, multiple attributes can have the value "true" art the same time.
Suggestion: Rather than saying "used to generate" we may say "are considered when generating". For instance, instead of The text:use-outline-level attribute determines whether headings are used to generate index entries. we may say The text:use-outline-level attribute determines whether headings are considered when generating index entries. Yes, and that helped me see a typo in text:use-index-source-styles.
I am not sure that "considered" is the right term. Although simply having a "true" value for any of inclusion attributes doesn't mean that a particular item will appear in the index. The setting of the text:outline-level plays a role as well. Note that the following paragraph (from text:use-outline-level) is misleading: "The text:outline-level attribute specifies up to which level index source styles are being included. If the value is true, the table of contents includes an entry for every paragraph formatted with one of the styles specified in a <text:index-source-style> element. " Actually text:outline-level is specifying to which level *paragraphs* with index source styles are being included. I would move the definition of "true" to before this sentence and in a value list of the defined values for this attribute. None of that solves the issue of what to do about "considered." How about: "The text:use-outline-level attribute determines whether headings may be included when generating index entries." Does "may" capture that simply having a "true" value here is not the end of determining if a heading will or will not be included? Or do we need a note that mentions the role of text:outline-level? For sources of index entries (not just here)? Attributes are independent. Nothing in the specification contradicts this. We may clarify interactions in ODF 1.2.
I don't think "No Action" is exactly what we need here. If we are going to account for all of the N1078 items, we need to provide a response that is essentially the statement that Rob Weir provides. (I am assuming an approach similar to Errata 01.)
In ODF 1.0 Errata CD04, the reason for taking no action seems off-base. The response we provide is "Rejected, the specification shows no contradiction to the independence of XML attributes, but ODF 1.2 will offer a more detailed explanation of the attributes."
I'm thinking we need a better term than "Rejected." Or disposition is that no action is to be taken. I would also rather not over-promise what ODF 1.2 or any future version might accomplish. The question asked in the Defect Item is answered by something like this: "No action required. The attributes text:use-index-source-styles, text:use-outline, and text:use-index-marks are indeed independent and can all apply. The absence of any limitation on their combined occurrence is intended." Errata 02 - ODF 1.2 Reconciliation:
There was no action for Errata 02 and there is nothing to reconcile with ODF 1.2. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Bug
Applied
Major
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 N 1078 : DEFECT REPORT NUMBER JP2-4
Text:use-index-marks = If the value is true, the table of contents includes entries generated from table of content index marks. (TOC)
text:use-index-source-styles deals with the creation of index entries, doesn't address the issue of inclusion in the TOC.