OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-collab message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [office-collab] 6. Discussion of Different Approaches (was Comments on draft consensus report)


Hi all –

Comments to Robin’s questions below on the supplement.  Let me know if anything doesn’t quite make sense or if there are other questions.

 

> but rather proposes insert/delete style

i.e., the way CT is done in ODF (other than as specified in Part 1, section 5.5.4).  Just to be clear that it’s not something brand new.

 

> this implies that with ECT there could be two ways to handle some changes

I’m not suggesting there be multiple ways to handle something.  That paragraph merely intended to acknowledge that ODF may already support some of the cases listed in the “Compound Changes” section.  I added that section as part of the supplement following discussion on the list of other complicated cases involving multiple changes happening.  The first example, “”Add paragraph and merge with preceding paragraph,” is already handled by ODF and the example markup used ODF 1.2 syntax.  The others, however, used some of what ECT proposed, such as ct:format-change-start and the ct:id attribute to allow multiple children within a text:changed-region.

 

> though I was unable to get the right results applying the insert/delete style algorithm

Since ECT doesn’t propose removing 5.5.4, it applies in this case since the change marker is inside a <text:p>.  The example works if 5.5.4 is followed.

 

> But the supplement introduces other edit operations so this extends the scope, so it is in fact wider than the table in the proposal. Is that correct?

What other edit operations?  It covers additional use cases around the same types of content.  Specific operations such as merging lists?  I’d think that falls under the category of editing text content.

 

On a related note, is anyone confused over my use of the term “supplement”?  I get a sense of disconnect between “proposal” and “supplement” in some of the mail over the last week (e.g., I am not sure if your reference to the proposal includes the supplement or not).  Both docs together comprise the ECT proposal.  When I wrote the supplement to address additional complex use cases that were discussed on the list after I published the first doc, I considered simply making additions to the first doc but thought it would be easier for everyone to identify and consume the additional material if I kept it separate.  I needed to call this new doc something and chose supplement since it supplies additional info.

 

John

 

From: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Robin LaFontaine
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 9:24 AM
To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [office-collab] 6. Discussion of Different Approaches (was Comments on draft consensus report)

 

On 25/10/2011 01:51, John Haug wrote:

.

 

6. Discussion of Different Approaches

New third paragraph – The new text isn’t right.  The “paragraph style” idea was simply me offering a different option from the core insert/delete style the entirety of ECT uses (and the main style ODF uses, other than section 5.5.4, as noted in the introduction of the supplement) since there was discussion about pros and cons of insert/delete.  “Paragraph style” was relegated to the supplement’s appendix, didn’t get much traction and I never pushed it since it was just an idea to try to spur some design discussion in the SC.  The two sentences about attempting to correct ODF’s “paragraph style” and being poorly specified are incorrect and should be stricken – “ECT addresses…” and “Existing implementations…”.

 

I didn’t think anyone was unclear on this from earlier discussions.  If so, please let us know and we’ll address any questions.  From the “paragraph style” introduction in the supplement doc:

“This approach is included here largely for purposes of discussion within the subcommittee since it is part of the existing ODF change tracking model.  Challenges arise when the block of markup moved to the text:tracked-changes area does not begin and end with text:p tags and when the block does not consist solely of empty XML structure.  For these reasons, it is not recommended unless the subcommittee decides otherwise, and markup examples are included for such consideration.”

 

..snip

John,
I do seem to have misunderstood your supplement, my apologies for that. I have had another look at it to try to get to grips with what you are saying. Let me try to reflect that back to you to see if my understanding is correct.

ECT is an extension to ODF CT and it preserves the paragraph-style mechanism where it is used in ODF 1.2. Therefore any valid ODF 1.2 document with CT will also be valid with ECT (subject to clarification of what is valid).

However, paragraph-style is known to have problems, and so a clearer defintion is needed in the prose. The work to define how this will be clarified is not yet done. Therefore there is some danger that current ODF 1.2 documents will become invalid when this re-definition is done. (I would like to say in the report why we do not have this clarifying prose... it was not done between 1.1 and 1.2 and no-one has attempted to do it within the SC work. So the only reason I can see is that it is difficult!)

Also, because of the deficiencies of paragraph-style, ECT does not extend it into other areas but rather proposes insert/delete style. The supplement shows how insert/delete style works for different types of edit, and for information provides an appendix to show how paragraph-style might have been extended, but this is not recommended.

The supplement says, "A number of the cases below are already handled by the current change tracking model. The examples may show different ways to support these cases using the additional syntax introduced by this proposal." So this implies that with ECT there could be two ways to handle some changes, and the SC would (presumably) need to decided if this is desirable or whether to go with only ODF 1.2 style since this is an extension. If it is possible that the SC will deprecate some other parts of ODF 1.2 CT then we should state this clearly, the expectation is that an extension is just that. Let me know your view.

I note in the supplement that for some examples the insert/delete style is the same as the paragraph-style, e.g. List merging and Table cell split – horizontal, Table cell split – vertical. This implies that in some situations the two algorithms produce the same result (though I was unable to get the right results applying the insert/delete style algorithm to the List merging example, seemed some magic was needed to get the text into the right place - let me know if I am doing it wrong please). I may have missed something here, let me know.

In terms of the scope, the table in the proposal was, I understood, the scope. But the supplement introduces other edit operations so this extends the scope, so it is in fact wider than the table in the proposal. Is that correct?

Please correct/clarify any of the above and then I will be in a position to update this paragraph.

Thanks,
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

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: office-collab-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: office-collab-help@lists.oasis-open.org



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]