[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: GCT-Issue-2 (was GCT Issues Wiki page)
On 24/08/2011 16:13, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: > GCT-Issue-2: > IMHO, amending the proposal to include information on which editing > operation is represented essentially changes the character of GCT to > something more like ECT. So isn't this response really a statement that > ECT in principle cannot work? (Note: I think you meant to say So isn't this response really a statement that GCT in principle cannot work? ) Please see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-collab/201106/msg00010.html for a general comment on approach. The principle here is that GCT provides a generic method to represent any change, and by adding meta-data to describe the editing action, and any relevant constraints, it can represent any specific editing operation and thus resolve this objection, while at the same time having the advantage of 'extended-conforming' per GCT-Issue-1. GCT still differs fundamentally from ECT in many ways, and we need to highlight these in the consensus report. I believe a generic method with constraints (like XML with a schema) is fundamentally a better approach than customized solution for each use case. This is especially so for a large schema such as ODF. Robin -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd "Change control for XML" T: +44 1684 592 144 E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com http://www.deltaxml.com Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]