[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Questions/comments concerning the Select Committee report on Change Tracking
Robin, On behalf of the select committee, some notes and comments: On 07/19/2012 04:40 AM, Robin
LaFontaine wrote:
Questions/comments concerning the Select Committee report on Change TrackingThe question facing the TC isn't use cases, although they are useful illustrations. The question facing the TC is what change tracking mechanisms meets present and future needs, across the widest set of implementation models. ODF is the basis for *interoperable interchange* of documents and *not* a processing model.
Well ECT suffers from the same as GCT. Maybe not in it's current proposal, but in the future when we extend again and again we will end up with an XML format that is even more verbose than GCT. On the other hand ECT offers over GCT a set of changes more tuned to user actions and not to XML changes. At some point in the future the increasing complexity of EEECT XML (extended extended) will possibly be worse than the problems of not having to deal with user centric changes. We say possibly since user centric changes are a big win. Fortunately we don't have to choose (ECT would win) because MCT offers us both eternally simple XML and user centric changes. Camilla addressed this issue in a previous post. It doesn't mix with the current content. The change tracking is kept separate. The current "content" of any document is available to an application that can read ODF. Even content changing unaware ones.
I beg to differ. Applications already address the components (to be specified) as they already have editing capabilities. All MCT needs to specify is a set of operations (add/delete in my view) to be performed on the components already addressed by applications. Applications will have their own internal models for how they translate the uniform addressing of MCT into their own addressing. Thus, with a minimum of additional XML syntax, MCT leverages existing addressing capabilities of applications to provide an interchangeable tracking of changes. True, MCT needs further specification but that could have already happened but for the distraction of collaboration issues (already noted) and various procedural and foot fault type issues. The select committee was asked to make a recommendation and my colleagues devoted after work hours and weekends to that task. We were not charged with writing a history of every document, email and comment that has occupied the SC for more than a year without any definitive result. We were asked to make a recommendation/decision. We have done so. Questions are more than welcome. Suggestions that the select committee was unaware of the issues, reported in a "misleading" fashion, etc., are not. Hope everyone is looking forward to a great weekend! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Former 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) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]