[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 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, -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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]