On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 19:56 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 18:16 -0600, monkeyiq wrote:
>
> > The context dependant processing of text:p means that such code paths
> > would have to be duplicated; one for text:p elements at top level, and
> > another for text:p elements buried inside a bucket.
>
> I would disagree. There are other ways to keep context than to duplicate
> code paths. In fact text:p elements can already occur in various
> distinct contexts, so I would assume that you are aleady preserving the
> context for those situations without duplicating the code paths.
>
> Andreas
>
The duplication is to handle loading and assembling the changes from the
text:p inside all the buckets for the old versions.
Page 9 of the ECT proposal shows how "normal" text:p would have calls
out to change tracking to describe style changes inline, however page 17
uses en masse retiring & versioning of text:p objects each time a
draw:frame is changed. Thus to load each text:p instance (page 9 vs
inside bucket on page 17) the code itself would have to be quite
different. And again, to generate these serializations, one would need
quite different code.
