Re: [office] Change tracking requirements comments

[Svante Schubert <svante.schubert@gmail.com>]

On 18.03.2012 17:33, Svante Schubert wrote:

More important, when reading we should prioritize the requirements into three groups: 1, 2 and 3. Where 1 is the most urgent group with certain scope of our next release and 2 like a maybe for next release and 3 with a worthwhile, but follow up requirement.

I forgot to mention the scenarios for the request of priorities:

1. The complete set of ODF can hardly be implemented in one step due its amount of feature-set. IMHO a quick adoption of future technology could be best archived by collecting the most demanding use cases - like the set the extended change-tracking proposal defined and define it as first mandatory set.
   
2. It does not work out, if two ODF applications declare to support change-tracking, but define different functionality. There should be one minimum set being defined for a minimum of interoperability.  Like implement the minimum of this feature or leave it.

Note: There might be further sets than three at all, like three sets for each mime type or even more.

Best,
Svante