OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [office] References to ADC SC work on requirements for change tracking for Patrick

One thing I’m not finding in any of this material is any user data. Other than the one or two public comments on the 1.2 drafts, have any of the implementers seen or shared any feedback from customers on:

1.      How much CT is being used in ODF?

2.      What features users are requesting?

3.      Any current features users are having difficulty using?

4.      Anything related to customer comments (not comments from developers or other associates within the community, but actual customers)?


Creating yet another SC to make a decision seems a bit over the top to me. If the current SC is unable to make a recommendation, then they should lay the issues out to the TC, which should be able to then take a vote. But having actual usage and user data should be part of the info included. Otherwise we’re guessing about what is needed for a standard to support products and trying to be smart on behalf of those users, which almost never works in software.


Chérie Ekholm

Senior Standards Professional

Microsoft Office Standards & Interoperability

Phone: 425-706-1425

Fax: 425-936-7329

Redmond, WA


From: office@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Robin LaFontaine
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:31 AM
To: Patrick Durusau
Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [office] References to ADC SC work on requirements for change tracking for Patrick



Following up the TC conference call today, this may be useful to you in drawing up a list of change tracking requirements (some links may be internal not public, the system makes it difficult to get public links though all are public).

We did start off looking at requirements [1][2] and compared the two approaches based on these[3]. As we got further into our discussions, it was clear that there were requirements issues at a higher level that had not been addressed/agreed/specified, and these were pulled out in the 'consensus' report [4][5].

1. Charter of the ADC SC

2. Initial conference call to discuss requirements

3. SC wiki on requirements
There are also a number of use cases there which give requirements at a more detailed level (related specifically to ODF 1.2), but this is less relevant to you I believe, though worth looking at for background:

4. ODF Change Tracking: Analysis and Proposals Version 1.0
As submitted to TC:
In particular, see the Conclusions which ask a number of questions about requirements.
See also the WD05 version of this report with Svante's updates which introduce more on requirements for collaboration.

5. Thorsten makes some specific comments on requirements section of above report in his email:
Similarly, some issues that Andreas raises may be useful to you:



-- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd  "Experts in information change"
T: +44 1684 592 144  E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com      
Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: office-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: office-help@lists.oasis-open.org

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]