Re: [office-collab] Suggestions for moving forward to resolveissues

[monkeyiq <monkeyiq@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 21:26 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 20:26 -0600, monkeyiq wrote:
> > Also, I've not contributed to the WebODF GCT implementation by Jos van
> > den Oever. So this makes three independent implementations, not one as
> > you posit. 
> 
> Thank you for clearing that up. (I have no idea where I got the
> impression that they weren't truly independent, just that i was under
> this, apparently false, impression.)
> > 
> > On your last point, if we try to avoid the GCT because of its ability to
> > be generic and thus choose ECT and buckets, an application then needs to
> > be able to generically diff ODF fragments and interpret the results to
> > actually work out what the changes were in order to show them. We have
> > merely swept the complexity out of one place and into another.
> 
> I don't think under the bucket proposal an application is expected to
> compare the bucket contents to figure out what has changed but the
> buckets were intended as indivisible units, ie. an application would
> only indicate that the bucket changed.

That seems like a huge limitation. 

A reader might like to treat changes to the spelling in a caption text
differently to wholesale replacement of the image that is shown. The
former being somewhat simpler to verify while the later might require a
copy editor to see the old and new images in order to decide if a change
is acceptable. 

Following on the reporter scenario, in an extreme case the editor might
want to see a comment accompanying the image update with a reporters
reason for the change. For example, when the new and old images are very
similar, something like "Gamma corrected", or HDR version to bring Barry
into better view.