OFFICE-3873: Possible Response to PAS Comment JP2

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

I came away from the BRM, where I sat in, with another way of characterizing what there is that is implementable *as*specified* in ODF 1.2 Part 1 section 5.5 and what is currently and actively implementation dependent.  This may be useful when the corresponding Defect Report comes in via SC34 WG6.

My thinking:

  1. The tracked-changes markup is intended to be reversible.  

  2. For changes to be reversible, the only well-defined use of the tags according to this specification is when the only thing a consumer needs to do to present what a tracked-change is, and to reverse it, is if reversal is completely and accurately obtained by following the specification exactly.

  3. That is, for the removal of an insertion, it is sufficient to simply extract all of the material starting with the insertion’s <text:change-start> element through the matching (subsequent) <text:change-end> element having the same ID.

  4. For the removal of a deletion, it is sufficient to apply the deletion reversal procedure, as specified, in the place of the removed <text:change> element.

IN ALL OTHER CASES

    Any other arrangements between producer and consumer beyond provisions of the specification for determining what the change is and its appropriate reversal is based on agreements beyond the specification and are implementation-dependent.

That’s my best shot.  


 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
    orcmid@apache.org
    dennis.hamilton@acm.org    +1-206-779-9430
    https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
    X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail