Re: [Fwd: Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.2 specification draft 1.2- chapters 6 and 7]

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Oliver,

A reply to my own post! ;-)

I started entering the edits and then saw:

"Otherwise, the information is updated each time the file is edited, 
causing the fields to change value when the document is edited by a 
different author."

That sounds like one subsequent author is maintained but then that may 
simply be an OpenOffice detail that may be resolved differently elsewhere.

Is there any sense of other ODF implementations that do maintain 
information for more than one subsequent author?

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Oliver,
>
> A quick question on the "sender" fields:
>
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> <snip>
>>>>> - comment to future note in sub chapter "6.3.7.1 <text:author-name>":
>>>>> text:author-name is not a duplicate of dc:creator. 
>>>>> text:author-name is the author of the document, while dc:creator 
>>>>> is the creator of this ODF stream. E.g. Oliver create a new text 
>>>>> document in ODF and stores it - text:author-name="Oliver" and 
>>>>> dc:creator="Oliver". Oliver sends the document to Michael for 
>>>>> review. Michael opens the document, makes his corrections and 
>>>>> stores the document - text:author-name="Oliver" and 
>>>>> dc:creator="Michael".
>>>> Sorry, you lost me there.
>>>>
>>>> What you describe sounds like Michael, as the second author of the 
>>>> document, is listed for dc:creator.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, so is "sender" just bad prose? What it means is a subsequent 
>>>> author of content in the file?
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering how the application was going to realize it had 
>>>> been "sent."
>>>>
>>>> So, I should remove the sender language and simply say additional 
>>>> author?
>> The 'Author' created the document and the 'Sender' ist the one who
>> changed the document. 'Sender' is not a good choice :-;
> OK, I can't change the text:sender-* element names (not in this 
> release) but I can change the prose to be more appropriate.
>
> My suggestion is to use the phrase "a subsequent author" in place of 
> sender in the prose.
>
> Under the general introduction I will explain the divergence from the 
> text:sender-* language.
>
> Question: It is fair to say that an application could choose to 
> support more than one subsequent author? That is it could maintain 
> multiple sets of what we now call text:sender-* elements?
>
> The current schema doesn't seem to prohibit that usage but I wanted to 
> ask to be sure.
>
> Hope you are looking forward to a great week!
>
> Patrick
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)