Re: [office-collab] change tracking proposal

[Ganesh Paramasivam <ganesh@crystalfab.com>]

> Ganesh, in your work to implement the generic-ct-proposal, have you
> implemented the use cases that you've mentioned? If so, it might be helpful
> for the SC to hear any thoughts you have on the experience of implementing
> them. It would also be interesting to hear feedback from those who have not
> implemented either proposal.

The current status of implementation for the use-cases I had mentioned are

Complex Delete Merges - Fully Implemented
Multiple and Overlapping Changes - Partially Implemented
Table Cell Splits and Merges - Not Yet Implemented (Foundation code
for this feature done)

The current status of implementation-completeness is primarily a
result of task scheduling and time constraints and is very much a
work-in-progress ( to reach the eventual goal of full implementation
).

The complex delete merge scenarios were a bit tricky to implement and
verify and I have already requested for an enhancement in the spec to
simplify this area further. But to be fair to the specification, the
use-cases themselves difficult to change-track and I'm happy to see
that it is at-least feasible to implement these use-cases by the
generic-ct-specification. It is for the same reason that I wanted to
see how these use-cases were going to be handled by the
extended-ct-specification.

I'm not sure whether John's suggestion that we could look at simple
delete changes implementation to get an idea of the complexity and
feasibility to complex delete changes implementation is valid. This is
a different beast altogether and I would still like to see these
use-cases specifically addressed by the extended-ct-specification (
along with multiple and overlapping change tracking ).

Regards,
Ganesh