I like this idea. And I'd suggest one additional wrinkle. Perhaps along
with document-level revisioning, there is also more granular revisioning
at the level of a section, or a presentation slide. This is especially
interesting for distributed editing tasks where multiple users are editing
the same document.
But it isn't clear to me where this information goes:
A) Keep the document XML simple, a projection of a single revision, a
snapshot if you will. The complexity of the revision history is stored
externally, in a database.
B) Store the revisions in the XMK, or at least in the ZIP container. Make
it self-contained.
-Rob
monkeyiq <> wrote on 05/16/2011 08:43:37 AM:
>
> I'm not sure if this would be desired at the spec level or just left up
> to implementations to piece together as they wish. But at the spec level
> it might be nice to at least be able to explicitly indicate that a
> delta:change-transaction element represents a coalesced revision to
> avoid confusing applications.
>
