RE: [office-collab] Re: [office] Groups - MCT Challenge #2 (PDF) uploaded

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

From my perspective, the investigation of implementations is to ensure that what the MCT *format* enables and does not impede important user-experienced use cases.  Since there are legacy and document interchange to deal with, these are not inappropriate considerations.  

 - Dennis

PS: I note that ODF itself was rather directly extracted from an implementation and the relationship to OpenOffice remains strong.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Andreas J Guelzow
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:27
To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office-collab] Re: [office] Groups - MCT Challenge #2 (PDF) uploaded

I have not been attending the last collab calls since the discussion has
been side-tracked (in my opinion) to talk about implementation
behaviour, although it is in principle impossible to know the interface
users are facing to modify the document (unless of course the interface
is forced by the standard).

Since ODF is a document format, it really should be mood about the
choices made by implementors and allow a wide variety of interfaces,
including those possibly not envisioned yet.

What I think should be provided is a basic set of actions that modify
the document (possibly with the possibility to optionally group those
actions) so that any user-action permissible inside a specific interface
can be translated into a sequence of these base actions.

How exactly a certain implementation combines the styles and formattings
of two paragraphs that are being fused in to a single paragraph really
should not have any bearing on the stored change-track actions (unless
one of course wants to force all implementations to have the identical
behaviour.)

Andreas 

On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 11:21 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Let me clean up my aside about what can be known:
> 
> I mean that the MCT cannot govern producer behavior about what happened that led up to the produced change-tracking.  Users may have their own requirements on what producers and consumers are acceptable for their work, but there is no way to reflect that in conformance clauses for MCT, especially for producers.
> 
> Am I mistaken in this?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:18
> To: 'Svante Schubert'; 'office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: RE: [office-collab] Re: [office] Groups - MCT Challenge #2 (PDF) uploaded
> 
> OK, good.
> 
> Now, is there a technical definition of measurable equivalence?  The one about deletion of a string of characters one at a time being tracked that way (but the preference is to track it as one change) is easy.  
> 
> When there are non-coalescing atomic actions, there is the matter of different cases, as already discussed for insertion in insertions, deletions across deletions, etc., that can arrive in more than one way but aren't *necessarily* reflected in the persistent document.
> 
>   Or perhaps that is simply up to the producer, since there is no way to know that the user actually did it as one action once the document is produced?  (I may have answered my own question, assuming the MCT specification does not constrain the relationship of the producer to its provisions for in-session editing actions.  I am assuming that such a constraint is inappropriate in a format specification, since there's no way to know.)  
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Svante Schubert
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 09:40
> To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [office-collab] Re: [office] Groups - MCT Challenge #2 (PDF) uploaded
> 
> On 05.12.2012 18:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > My sympathies are with the statement by Oliver on the call log:
> >
> >    [16:08] Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: Thus, yes I agree. I would 
> >    also go a step further: Would be good, if an application 
> >    could indicate a certain bundling and may be also name it.
> >
> [ ... ]
> I believe you you refer to the log, the original quote was '
> 
> the information set of changes have to be the same.
> 
> ' It was meant that the granularity of changes does not matter. It only
> matters that the overall change is the same. Accepting/Rejecting once
> "abc" or each three separated characters is up to the application.
> Operations used by applications to express the change have to be equivalent.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> [...]
> 
> Best regards,
> Svante
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: office-collab-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: office-collab-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: office-collab-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: office-collab-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> 

-- 
Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD FTICA
Professor of Mathematical & Computing Sciences
Concordia University College of Alberta