Re: [office-collab] Compromise on change-tracking proposals

[Robin LaFontaine <robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com>]

On 22/09/2011 20:53, Svante Schubert wrote:
> Allow me a little magic trick. ...
> So if we agree to standardize all labels of operations, our two 
> proposals are close to equal.
> The difference is: I neglect the redundant verbose XML change, only 
> keeping the CT labels in the document, move them out of the content 
> into their own file "undo.xml" and specify the XML change of each 
> label on TC level in a specification. Saving a lot of space in the 
> document and allowing ODF applications with no XML model to deal with 
> CT on a higher abstraction level.
That is quite  big magic trick, as you call it! However I do agree this 
is worth looking it. I think there could be a way of removing all the 
markup to another file, which has advantages in some (not all!) situations.

I am not so sure you can simply ignore the details of the changes 
(though maybe I have not understood you properly here). But some worked 
examples will make that clear, it would be worth investigation. See also 
comments in 'Two items for voting...' thread. I hope you will be able to 
address this in the document you are working on that describes your 
approach.

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