[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-collab] How do we count? - September 26, 2012
Oliver, On 09/21/2012 09:26 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
Hi, sorry for stepping in soo late and also sorry for top-posting. I am at the beginning of getting deep into the current change tracking stuff. Thus, please correct and help me, if I am wrong, because of lack of deep insight. From my point of view a type-dependent counting does not makes sense. Reason - look at the following sample: - Ending markup: <text:p> <text:table> <text:section> <text:p> - Starting markup <text:p> <text:table> <text:p> <text:section> <text:p> - Undo <add type="paragraph" /2 ...> Having the Ending markup and the Undo I do not know where the <text:p> element needs to be inserted (before <text:table>, after <text:table> and before <text:section> or after <text:section> to undo the tracked change.
But you do have the necessary information.When you say "starting markup" what is really meant is that if the internal representation were serialized into ODF conformant XML, it would appear thus:
<text:p> <text:table> <text:p> <text:section> <text:p>But the information that composing the document isn't held that way by the application (or isn't necessarily held that way).
The XML serialized format conceals the fact that all those elements have an absolute numbering relative to each other.
Thus: [1]<text:p> [2]<text:table> [3]<text:p> [4]<text:section> [5]<text:p>And the application "knows" that the element [5]<text:p> follows element [4]<text:section>
In the XML, that ordering information isn't explicit but is left implied. So if I say: Undo <add type="paragraph" /2 ...>The insertion of the paragraph /2 occurs in the editor, after [2]<text:table>, just as it does now. (In other words, the editor tracks the location of changes just like it does now. However it does that internally. All that is required is that it serialize it back to the proper place.)
All I have suggested is that type dependent counting could lessen the burden on applications that don't want to count all possible changes, opening up the potential for different levels of change tracking.
Otherwise, we are going to have to define all the elements that are counting for addressing purposes and every application will have to count the same elements.
What if I want to count <draw:page> and you do not? How does that impact our respective counting of elements?Thanks for the Apache OpenOffice comments! I need to look more closely at several implementations on CT and other issues.
Hope you are at the start of a great weekend! Patrick
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
--
Advisory Software Engineer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Deutschland
Beim Strohhause 17
20097 Hamburg
Phone: +49-40-6389-1415
E-Mail: orwitt@de.ibm.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzende des
Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart,
HRB 243294
From: Svante Schubert <svante.schubert@gmail.com>
To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 13.09.2012 17:52
Subject: Re: [office-collab] How do we count? - September 26, 2012
Sent by: <office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi Patrick,
On 12.09.2012 22:47, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Svante,
From below:
How does omitting the type make counting easier?
We have less to implement. How does typing help us?
If we omit the type, then we have to all count the same
components from the root. What if my application only
counts text:p and not text:h? If I can count text:p[24] I
can at least apply changes that point to that component.
I got a solution for clients with different feature set, but I
fear it might take us too far at this stage. May I instead ask
where typing help us in change-tracking scenarios, which could
not be fulfilled without typing?
There is this quote of Antoine de Saint-Exupery:
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take
away."
Ah, but your counting presumes a defined (as yet undefined) counting
system that results in every application getting the same count.
Yes
Which means they all have to count the *same* components.
Yes
Sounds like a common data model to me.
Yes, ODF is the common data model and the components is just an abstraction
from the XML, grouping one ore more XML elements to a logical unit we call
component
What I am suggesting is that if we count types, then if my
application only counts text:p, it can find all changes to the
components for which it offers change tracking.
Not every application will offer the same level of change tracking.
So counting should not depend on a universal component counting
system.
(Unless you think all application should be required to have a common
component counting, whether they offer change tracking for all
defined components or not.)
Hmmm, what is more, if I only count text:p components, I can append
my changes to the CT file, to be picked up by an application that
offers broader change tracking capabilities.
Yes?
You might perhaps solve it with types, but it works IMHO even without
types.
May I draw the answer-this-complex-question-later card? ;)
Hope you are having a great evening!
Patrick
Best regards,
Svante
On 09/12/2012 03:06 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:
Hi Patrick,
On 12.09.2012 20:11, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Svante,
On 09/12/2012 01:24 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:
Hi Patrick,
A meta "issue" deserves a meta answer.
We would count as our scenarios demand us to do
I personally would count as simple as possible.
Yes, but here is where the confusion begins.
There is no specified point for starting the count in
your example other than the first element that appears
being <text:h>.
That is an impossible starting point for an ODF document
instance (single XML file or package).
The content of an ODF document is in the content.xml and starts
beyond the office:body child, e.g. for text documents all
children of /office:document-content/office:body/office:text/
are potential component candidates.
In our ODF schema there are even defined names as
"office-text-content-prelude" and
"office-text-content-epilogue"
The children of the root of a text document are defined among
<define name="text-content">
Yes, the numbers may change after each operation.
But immediately prior to each operation, there is a
numbering of the components which all applications
loading that document and proceeding to the point prior
to any specified change, agree is the numbering of the
components.
Each operation results in the next "state" of the
document. That numbers increase/decrease is unremarkable.
See below for more questions/comments:
<snip>
To ease counting and adapting of parameter, I
suggest not to count type dependent (e.g. text:p
[24]) and in addition as most components are being
used cross document wide (e.g. html, docbook,
ooxml), I would personally would prefer to use the
more verbose human readable form, i.e. paragraph
instead of text:p.
How does omitting the type make counting easier?
We have less to implement. How does typing help us?
If we omit the type, then we have to all count the same
components from the root. What if my application only
counts text:p and not text:h? If I can count text:p[24] I
can at least apply changes that point to that component.
I got a solution for clients with different feature set, but I
fear it might take us too far at this stage. May I instead ask
where typing help us in change-tracking scenarios, which could
not be fulfilled without typing?
There is this quote of Antoine de Saint-Exupery:
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take
away."
I don't see the relevance of human readable format for
change tracking. If you want to display paragraph rather
than text:p, be my guest. ;-)
But in the end the component name is only a working
title. In the as XML serialized form of operations,
the component name could again be abbreviated, e.g.
back to the local name of the ODF XML root element,
when being used.
Don't misuse the concept of "root element." It is well
defined in XML and <text:p> in ODF is not a root element.
There is no misuse, there are just two kind of roots. One
document root element and a component root element. By default,
I will talk about component root elements.
I suppose an additional meta question is going to be
deciding on a vocabulary to discuss change tracking. ;-)
;)
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
Best regards,
Svante
On 12.09.2012 15:54, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Greetings!
Sorry to be bringing up another "meta" issue
so soon but it occurs to me that we need to
decide not only *what* we are going to count
(Svante's components) but *how* we intend to
count them.
In such a way that allows for implementations
to have whatever internal representations,
from tables and DOM trees to more
sophisticated structures.
That is to say I view the component
identification <-> implementation model as
follows:
ODF defines interchangeable component
identification -> mappingTo (defined by
implementations) -> Implementation Model
Implementers define Implementation Model(s)
and, mappingTo -> ODF defined interchangeable
component identification
Having said that, and speaking only of
elements, I would suggest that we follow the
already defined elements with their
namespaces, followed by the "count" of that
element in the document as the designation
for an element.
thus (ignoring path):
text:p[24] would be the 24th text:p element
in a document.
I thought about simply counting everything
and relying solely on address/count but that
would limit the internal models you could
use.
with text:p[24] you can use whatever internal
structure you like, so long as it can find
and report text:p[24].
***
Having said that, I think counts should start
with 1 and accept up to 32-bit integers (I
don't want to have to revisit this anytime
soon.)
Oh, and counts need to start at the root of
each XML file, such that we can lose all the
files in a package except CT and content.xml
(or even part of it) and still be able to
apply all of the change tracking that retains
targets in content.xml file.
***
Does the count starting at the root of each
XML file imply we need some internal CT file
structure other than operations and paths?
That is do we track changes to styles
themselves separately from application of
styles?
My gut says no but am interested in other
opinions. Mostly saying no because if we make
change tracking overly clever, the more
fragile it will become.
Thinking the better course is like a
key/value pair:
operation - path with change
True, an implementation has to "know" that
style:style isn't found in content.xml but
that isn't a high expectation.
Sorry, did not mean to cover so many issues
in one post, summary:
(1) Counting starts with 1 for each component
and continues up to 32 bits (anything in
excess of 32 bits is an error, discard, don't
allow buffer overflow)
(2) Components (elements) are designated by
namespace:elementName[count]
(3) Counting starts at the root of each file
(4) CT entries are recorded in the order of
application in the CT file as "operation -
path with change" (operations, paths, change
subject to definition by the SC)
This one may take a while on a call, even
with vigorous email discussion.
Hope everyone is having a great day!
Patrick
PS: Almost forgot: What do we call the CT
file? Taking the SGML route:
TBCBPDAGDHJHMJRLDMFMTMARSSRWORW.xml seems a
bit verbose. Suggestions for something
shorter? Or do you want to use that as a
working name? ;-)
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor
ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: office-collab-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: office-collab-help@lists.oasis-open.org
-- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]