Re: [office] proposal to enhance annotations

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems<Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM>]

Dave Pawson wrote:
> Comments inline.
> 
> On 26/07/07, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems
> 
>> Thus, I propose to introduce the following new element and new 
>> attributes:
>> - new element <office:annotation-end> with the attribute
>> office:annotation-end-id with type <ref name="ID">
>> - new optional attribute office:ending-at with type <ref name="IDREF">
>> for existing element <office:annotation>
> 
> -1 to the offic:annotation-end
> 
> I'd prefer a 'matching pair'
> e.g. annotation-start and annotation-end as the element names.
> or use an attribute to declare the end?

I didn't choose 'matching pair' of start and end, because of the 
following reason:
An implementation, which supports ODF 1.1 will not lose the annotation, 
which annotates a part of the document. Such an application will still 
read the <office:annotation> element - it only ignores the unknown 
attribute office:annotation-end-id and the unknown element 
<office:annotation-end>.
Backward-Compatibility was the reason not the introduce new elements 
<office:annotation-start> and <office:annotation-end>.

> 
> I'm guessing you're using ID and IDREF as the type?
Yes.

> You don't say what they point to? I.e. where the match is expected to
> be for testing.
Value of attribute office:ending-at points to value of 
office:annotation-end-id.

> 
> 
> More general comment.
> With insertion and deletion, the extent of  the 'overlapping markup'
> starts to become
> significant?
That's correct.

> 
> I guess it would help if they all followed a consistant pattern?
> There are prior works
> http://www.idealliance.org/papers/extreme/proceedings/html/2002/Tennison02/EML2002Tennison02.html 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its becoming popular too. Eg. rng extension for validation of
> overlapping markup?
> http://2007.xtech.org/public/schedule/paper/46
> 
> 
> regards
>