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] Counting issues, etc


And isn't there another set of cases?  This discussion seems to assume that the application actors all understand (all) change tracking.  What about round-tripping of a document through an application that doesn't understand change tracking?  It should be able to preserve CT in areas of the document that it doesn't modify.  With relative referencing, even changes in other parts of the document can invalidate that, right?

Imagine a simple doc with a few sentences.  User 1 in app 1 which understands CT deletes the third sentence and tracks the change.  This is persisted outside the main text as a deletion of the 3rd sentence.  User 1 sends the doc to user 2 who uses app 2 which doesn't support change tracking.  User 2 adds a new sentence at the beginning of the paragraph.  That reference to deleting the 3rd sentence is now wrong and the doc will display incorrectly when user 2 sends it back to user 1.

Further, I suppose this new relative referencing design means that all ODF clients MUST support CT to avoid breaking documents and so that they display the doc correctly?  One of the tenets I had in considering ECT was to preserve the current behavior where simpler ODF clients didn't need to understand change tracking and the content in content.xml would always represent the "latest" state of the doc (as if all changes were accepted).  This latter concept was important enough that the GCT proposal was modified to allow for it.  Does MCT change both of these tenets now?

Perhaps I'm missing something big, since there's no single collection of the bottom line of MCT in one place; I may be missing something that's in the presentation and hundred or so e-mails.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dennis E. Hamilton
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:06 AM
To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office-collab] Counting issues, etc

In the spirit of starting with simple examples, here's one similar to what Patrick introduced.  I am not assuming which approach to change-tracking is used beyond assuming that the persistent form of the document can be read as if the changes are all applied when change-tracking is ignored.

ORIGINAL SPECIMEN

   <text:p text-attributes1>Consider that: </text:p>
   <text:p text-attributes2>ACKXXX once upon a time there were three little pigs.</text:p>

The user deletes, as a single operation, the text from the ":" to the text ending "ACKXX".

If this is allowed as a single deletion (it is in current ODF 1.2 implementations of change-tracking) at least two things will happen:

The resulting text will often be persisted as

    <text:p text-attributes1>Consider that once upon a time there were three little pigs.</text:p>

And something like the following will be captured elsewhere to reflect the deleted content:

       <text:p text-attributes1>: </text:p>
       <text:p text-attributes2>ACKXX</text:p>

There is additional markup to know where the deletion point is and information sufficient for (1) revoking the change, (2) accepting the change (trivial), and also (3) being able to display the text with change tracking in-line with distinctive markup.  (The ODF specification doesn't address these, but it is required to afford these activities in a practical implementation.)

Note that the formatting differences of the second paragraph are lost.  This is typical of what happens if the user takes no further action to remedy that.

Another way to handle that would be with something like this in the persisted post-deletion markup:

 <text:p><text:span text-attributes1>Consider
  that</text:span><!-- deletion point --><text:span text-attributes2>
   once upon a time there were three little pigs.</text:span></text:p>

although this requires an implementation that makes it easy for users to recognized and control <text:span> effects.

 
THE PUZZLE

How is this case handled in the MCT proposal?  I know what the ODF 1.2 "solution" is, and I can imagine simple attribute additions to that specification that would assist in (1) correct presentation with changes shown and (2) correctly restoring the original markup if the deletion is rejected.

BONUS POINTS

In the original text, but with the same deletion, consider what happens when one or the other of the two <text:p> elements is a <text:h>.

 - Dennis

PS: Knuth has said as much to me, although when I saw him in June, change-tracking was not part of the conversation [;<).
The problem is not with simple examples, it is with solutions that are simple only for the wrong problem.

-----Original Message-----
From: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 03:12
To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office-collab] Counting issues, etc

[ ... ]

Now, assume that staying with an all <text:p> example (apologies to Dennis but Knuth says it is easier to start with simple examples and work your way up), we have:

<text:p>A paragraph</text:p>
<text:p>Paragraph that will be deleted - no change tracking</text:p> <text:p>Another paragraph</text:p> <text:p>Paragraph to be inserted - with change tracking</text:p> <text:p>Yet another paragraph</text:p>

[ ... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]