With all due respect if this SC would be part of a profit (or at
least result) oriented company, I fear we all have been fired a
while ago.
There is little we can offer after our first year, how many years
are there to come? Now you offer us two choices to proceed and one
is to wait again 2-3 months to integrate MCT? What are you waiting
for?
When I look back, the SC managed to compare in the past year the
implementation details of two different approaches. But as stated
before there can be many more as using GIT within ZIP or add CT to
the ZIP spec, etc.
Perhaps we should start to forget about the details and take a look
from a bird perspective.
GCT: Focusing on ODF XML level changes. Very verbose, no
modularization and abstraction from the XML, therefore inefficient
for none ODF XML centric applications, which is the majority. No
compatibility to upcoming collaboration nor merge support. In
addition: The dream to have the similar XML syntax for all XML will
never become real, as changes are always better based on a semantic
level, which is often not similar to the XML. For instance the
change-tracking for MathML would be by best based on mathematical
operations and not on GCT. By using mathematical operation, CT for
MathML could be similar to CT for our spreadsheet formula - but I
would let the CT of graphics and external formats be addressed by
the owner of the format (W3C) and focus on the more often used ODF
features, first. Honestly I can hardly understand, why we should
spend any further time on details, if we once realized the approach
is wrong by design. And just in case someone should stick to GCT
forever, we will have to vote about it. Which seems to be the case
to me and in this case best not vote in a year or two, but soon.
ECT: A better way as GCT, still quite verbose and laking
modularization and abstraction from the XML. Do not offer merge
support nor the ability to be extended for later collaboration work.
To make it clear, I have not the intention to add a third proposal,
I have the intention to get rid of the first two ASAP to finally
start working for ODF 1.3.
- Svante
On 03.02.2012 18:47, Robin LaFontaine wrote:
The SC has a charter, and as chairman it is my job
to ensure we abide by it.
We have also previously made decisions which should not be
overturned by members of the group without consultation.
Both options A and B include giving due time and detailed
consideration to MCT, and for both options this is the next
step.
Robin
On 03/02/2012 12:29, Svante Schubert wrote:
Robin,
please allow me to be completely frankly on this..
You are defending GCT like a lioness her cub. From my current
perspective the request of a "formal proposal" is similar to a
barrier being set up to protect existing proposals. I can
neither find rules in OASIS nor I am aware of other working
groups, like the W3C, who are just allowing input based on a
"formal proposal". But to please you, please take my comment in
the analysis document and the references to my prior mails on
the list as the formal proposal. If you can not do this, please
quote the rules, which proof that this is not possible,
otherwise I suggest we focus more on the technical work again.
For the future of ODF, let us just assume for a second that we
all in the SC are interested in the most efficient solution for
change-tracking for ODF applications.
In this case we would consider all existing ideas on table and
do not hide behind walls of bureaucracy.
I am looking forward to start to answer technical questions..
- Svante
On 03.02.2012 12:59, Robin LaFontaine wrote:
I am ready to update WD04 of the report to
include comments from Andreas and Thorsten, but I cannot
update it with Svante's significant changes because there is
a lot of new material that is not supported by background
documents and discussion within the group. I was not
expecting a complete revision of the document, adding a new
proposal for which there is no supporting document: the
reference is to the email of 22 Sept 2011 where the last
line is "I am currently working on a formal proposal". We do
not have this proposal.
We have previously agreed to evaluate the two proposals and
produce a report, and this has taken us from April 2011 to
now. We had also in our charter that we should take change
tracking as our priority (this is a direction of the TC who
approved the charter).
It is not acceptable that one proposal has very little
supporting documentation and has had no discussion in the
SC, where the other proposals have had considerable
collaborative work and discussion.
In order to include the MCT proposal there would be work for
the SC to do, as we have done for GCT and ECT, including:
1. A document that gives details of the proposal, to
reference in the report
2. We need a presentation of this so we can understand it
and ask questions about it
3. We need to see worked examples so we can validate that it
works
4. Discuss as needed on the email list and in calls
To do this we need to revise our decision to include only
those proposals that were presented to us within the
original agreed timeframe. If we do revise that decision
then we need to check with the TC that we should no longer
treat change tracking as a priority, i.e. that we should
delay our work to fully consider real-time collaboration.
Such a decision will impact users of ODF who need change
tracking as soon as possible.
Please reply to this email with your views on this.
Essentially the choice for us as a subcommittee is:
A. Complete the revision of the consensus report covering
ECT and GCT with references to collaboration, and include
comments from Thorsten and Andreas (plus any smaller changes
Svante may propose). We can then discuss MCT while we get
public feedback on the report in parallel.
B. Revise our agreement to include only the two proposals
ECT and GCT and delay the report (for 2-3 months) to include
MCT.
If we go for B then we need to check this with the TC as
above.
I hope we can get the views of all SC members on this. We
will schedule a call in 1-2 weeks to discuss further but not
everyone will be able to attend that.
Robin
--
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd "Experts in information change"
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
--
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd "Experts in information change"
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
|