Re: [office] Inversed MCT

[André Rebentisch <andre.rebentisch@arsaperta.com>]

Am 20.07.2012 15:11, schrieb Patrick Durusau:
> André,
...
> To the best of my knowledge, intervening "untracked" changes have the
> same result for all methods of change tracking.
> 
> When there is a gap in the tracking of changes you have unpredictable
> results.

With change tracking info ignored by the consuming implementation, does
the resulting saved XML document core reflect the state before (A) or
after (B) changes were carried out? Obviously the former would result in
difficulties when change tracking is not implemented by the consuming
implementation. Thus you have to save state B and inversed change
tracking (undo, "ODF history").

Under MCT we have Svante's original concept with a notion of "inverse
operations", undo.xml and .undo directory storage.  The premise is that
for each "add" operation you have an equivalent "remove" operation:
"Every operation has an inverse operation"

In a realtime multi-user collaboration environment (from which MCT too
inspiration) you would rather want to follow a merge logic, based on a
shared source document ("A") and sharing operations, and the analysis of
the select committee largely followed a merge perspective in their
examples (assumption that inversion was a simple technicality).

How do the different approaches satisfy inversibility needs?

Best,
André