GCT-Issue-2 (was GCT Issues Wiki page)

On 24/08/2011 16:13, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> GCT-Issue-2:
> IMHO, amending the proposal to include information on which editing
> operation is represented essentially changes the character of GCT to
> something more like ECT. So isn't this response really a statement that
> ECT in principle cannot work?

(Note: I think you meant to say
So isn't this response really a statement that
GCT in principle cannot work?
)

Please see
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-collab/201106/msg00010.html
for a general comment on approach.

The principle here is that GCT provides a generic method to represent 
any change, and by adding meta-data to describe the editing action, and 
any relevant constraints, it can represent any specific editing 
operation and thus resolve this objection, while at the same time having 
the advantage of 'extended-conforming' per GCT-Issue-1.

GCT still differs fundamentally from ECT in many ways, and we need to 
highlight these in the consensus report.

I believe a generic method with constraints (like XML with a schema) is 
fundamentally a better approach than customized solution for each use 
case. This is especially so for a large schema such as ODF.

Robin


-- 
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd  "Change control for XML"
T: +44 1684 592 144  E: 
http://www.deltaxml.com
Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK