Re: [office] Errata in ODF spec 1.1

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Daniel, all

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> Three corrections in Section 4.6.4 Deletion, pages 80 and 81.
> 
> Correction #1 - Page 80
> -------------
> <quote>
> To reconstruct the text before the deletion took place, do:
> 
> * If the change mark is inside a paragraph, insert the text content of
> the <text:deletion> element as if the beginning <text:p> and final
> </text:p> tags were missing.
> * If the change mark is inside a header, proceed as above, except adapt
> the inserted tags to math their new counterparts.
> * Otherwise, simply copy the text content of the <text:deletion> element
> in place of the change mark.
> </quote>
> 
> Second bullet point: math -> match

That's an obvious spelling error. I propose that we correct it.
Tt seems to me that "inserted" further has to be replaced with "end".

> 
> Correcton #2: - page 81
> -------------
> The third example says:
> //------ snip
>       <text:p>abcdef</text:p>
>       <text:change text:id="example/>
>       <text:p>ghijkl</text:p>
> This becomes:
>       <text:p>abcdef</text:p>
>       <text:h>Hello</text:h>
>       <text:h>World!</text:h>
>       <text:p>ghijkl</text:p>
> //------
> 
> The tags around Hello and World should be text:p not text:h. So the last
> 4 lines should read:
> 
>       <text:p>abcdef</text:p>
>       <text:p>Hello</text:p>
>       <text:p>World!</text:p>
>       <text:p>ghijkl</text:p>


That's also an obvious editorial error, because the tags used in in the 
sample <deletion> element at the beginning of the sample are <text:p> tags. I 
propose that we correct it, too.


> 
> 
> Correcton #3: - page 81
> -------------
> Very last example of this section. Example says:
> 
> //------ snip start ----//
> The change that took place from
>       <text:p>abc</text:p>
>       <text:h>Hello</text:h>
>       <text:h>World!</text:h>
>       <text:p>def</text:p>
> to
>       <text:p>abc<text:change text:id="example/>def</text:p>
> 
> would be represented as:
> 
>       <text:changed-region text:id="example">
>            <text:deletion>
>                <office:change-info>...</office:change-info>
>                <text:p/>
>                <text:p>Hello</text:p>
>                <text:p>World!</text:p>
>                <text:p/>
>            </text:deletion>
>       </text:changed-region>
> //------ snip end ------//
> 
> The <text:h> tags on the first block don't match the <text:p> tags in
> the changeset. There are two ways to fix this.

I agree. It's obvious that this is inconsistent.

> 
> 1) Change the first block to:
>       <text:p>abc</text:p>
>       <text:p>Hello</text:p>
>       <text:p>World!</text:p>
>       <text:p>def</text:p>
> 
> 2) Change the changeset to:
>            <text:deletion>
>                <office:change-info>...</office:change-info>
>                <text:p/>
>                <text:h>Hello</text:h>
>                <text:h>World!</text:h>
>                <text:p/>
>            </text:deletion>
> 
> 
> Either of these is a valid solution, but we may need to change the
> explanatory text around here to make the examples fit well.
> 
> My suggestion is:
> 
> * Change the preceding text from this:
> 
>   "If, in the first two cases, the deletion contains complete
>   paragraphs, then additional empty paragraphs must be put into
>   the <text:deletion> element to achieve the desired result."
> 
> To this:
> 
>   "In some cases additional empty paragraphs must be put into
>   the <text:deletion> element to achieve the desired result.
>   For example:"
> 
> * And then update the changeset to use <text:h>.
> 
> It seems to me that this is what the original writer had in mind. The
> example seems designed to show how to create a changeset that contains
> <text:h> when the change mark is inside a <text:p>.

I think the intention was to provide an example what happens if full 
paragarphs are deleted. In this case, the empty paragraphs have to be added. 
So the only error seem to be the tag inconsistency. I propose that we change 
the changeset (solution 2), but do not change the description.

> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel.

Michael