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] Inversed MCT

Am 21.07.2012 03:17, schrieb Andreas J. Guelzow:
>> How do the different approaches satisfy inversibility needs?
> During the last year it was repeatedly stated that an ODF document with
> change tracking information when read by a consumer that does not
> understand the change tracking markup should appear as if all changes
> had been accepted (your case B above). This seems to imply that the
> document itself must always contain the final product. 

Indeed, so my observation was we are actually not dealing with Merge-CT
but Undo-CT, its inversed twin.

> Since all user actions are obviously reversible provided sufficient
> information is kept I don't see how there is any huge difference between
> recording an action or its inverse.

Trivial example:
A: "Rock Scissors Paper"
 op1: apply "bold face" to Rock
 op2: apply "bold face" to Paper
 op3: apply "bold face" to whole string
 op2: apply "bold face" to S
 op3: apply "bold face" to Scissors

How to undo op3? In the world of "merge" collaboration the task is very
convenient and smooth: Take saved state A and apply op1,op2. In a
"merge" view complex "user centric changes" (Patrick) are no issue
because you can reproduce them one by one based on the source A.

With a need for inversed operations you have to translate a "user
centric" op3 into what it actually changes and implement "real undo".
Implementation of inversion for more complex editing operations may
become a bit messy. You may end up with XML diffs even under MCT
(replace X by Y operations).


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