[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-collab] Generic CT proposal - an implementer's look atit
monkeyiq wrote: > > However, I have found that all the different ways to represent changes > > for the above use-cases capture the actual change accurately and > > precisely. i.e It is possible for an implementation to determine the > > change unambiguously and thereby to represent that change in it's > > internal model. It would great to remove the redundancy if possible > > though. > > I also don't find that the generic proposal being "generic" precludes it > from being implemented. It would be nice in some cases to have a > canonical, or "preferred" way to express the XML when two or more things > are interacting in the generic proposal. > Hi Ben, well, Ganesh mentions in his implementer's notes that * Paragraph or Header merge with list-items * List-item merges with paragraphs or headers * List-item splits * List-item merges * List merge with another list * Table cell splits * Table cell merges are challenging, and suggests extra mechanisms to handle those - which, to me, seems to support my argument that implementations have a hard time to cope with genericity. I agree that the simple cases, like insertions and deletions of text or paragraphs don't pose problems - but that is not surprising. At any rate, we need to make the hard cases work, and interoperate - otherwise, what's the point in having ct revamped. Cheers, -- Thorsten
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]