RE: [office-collab] Convergence of proposals

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

John Haug <johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote on 04/21/2011 01:38:47 
PM:

> 
> > Yes, I believe so: some restriction is needed, possibly in the 
> form of conformance classes or simply in the RelaxNG grammar.
> And I’ll repeat from the call my concern that this may be 
> insufficient.  Restricting the tracking of general types of changes 
> to certain elements is helpful, but it still allows, for example, 
> any change of that general class to be tracked on the element.  So, 
> restrictions at levels such as schema would allow tracking of 
> changes to any attributes on a set of elements, not just ones that 
> represent intentional changes the user has made to the conceptual 
> document objects represented by those elements.
> 
> What do the other experts here think – am I misunderstanding or is 
> this a valid consideration?
> 

A specific example would be the value of an ID/IDREF.  So long as the 
values are consistent from a referential integrity perspective, an 
implementation should be able to freely rewrite these values with 
application-generated unique random identifiers.  There are examples of 
values that may change, but typically are not of interest to a user from a 
change-tracking perspective.

-Rob