Re: [office-collab] Collaboration/Change Tracking aspects

From
Svante Schubert <>
Date
2014-09-14T14:45:37+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [office-collab] Collaboration/Change Tracking aspects
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    Hash: SHA512

    

    Hej everyone,

    

    Am 11/09/14 um 09:47 schrieb Patrick Durusau:

    > Greetings!

      >

      > While thinking about collaboration/change tracking this
      morning, it

      > occurred to me that there are several aspects yet to be
      discussed.

      >

      > For example, what elements do we need to designate who
      changes will be

      > sent to and how?

      >

    As a rule of thumb the XML root element of a subtree that is being
    inserted upon a common user interaction.

    Some are already mentioned in our current draft. Might be a good
    topic to start with on our next SC call.

    > Thinking such elements could
      designate a receiver of changes but at

      > the same time, disallow changes from a particular receiver.

      >

      > The use case being that I want to make changes to a document
      that are

      > reflected in distributed drafts but don't want to accept
      changes from

      > any of the distributed copies. [A management scenario but
      management

      > does use word processors. ;-) ]

      >

      > There should also be an element that controls the processing
      of

      > changes from particular sources, say limiting changes to
      comments and

      > comments upon comments and not any changes to the base text.

      >

    If the applications are keen to implement such a feature, we might
    be keen specifying it ;)

    Got a slight feeling here that this feature is out-of-scope as no
    additional interoperablilty will be offered.

    Again some topic we should put on next call agenda.

    > The use case being standards
      drafts for example, where notes on

      > particular parts of the text as well as notes on notes would
      be quite

      > acceptable. Whereas changes to the base text would not be.

      >

      > Thinking the receiver's list should be separate items (a
      list?) with

      > attributes to control the aspects of collaboration/change
      tracking I

      > have listed above.

    Indeed. Still the applications have to implement it first or have to
    suggest it and of course first the basic features have to be fully
    covered.

    One step after the other.

    >

      > Should we leave communication protocols up to applications?

      >

    We could perhaps in the future, at the moment we might want to focus
    on the existing change-tracking support to specify via operations.

    In addition it is even easier to discuss protocols if there are more
    applications around working on this.

    We need to get online app vendors into ODF. The application group
    that should be most interested in collaboration based on dispatching
    changes.

    

    Interesting thoughts you brought up, Patrick.

    > Hope everyone is having a great
      week!

    Same here, greetings from a StarBucks Denver, Co,

    Svante

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)

    Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

    

    iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUFaoKAAoJENkVprAHZ0k7pRUIAJfdCpUpVA/Mo3KSVRcnutox

    pzEeCC7VMMa0YLyptc5c1aHh014BFh7HBHJ8UF0yjpdfEZS7dDlK21vvAvLsunwL

    Wk9odyzysZ1XvN5KgP6GKIvOM2Z29YPwT68X8dqIrgaepuPswvChwN7bLdHzJZdC

    KO/bUgXK8vKP06Ty7s3ZO9rKgOHJABV3nyscqg9HvCeMyWzGOm8I9TfAIphdw5cl

    4SdIOZE001+M4JLk8sAZ6F2KftsULjojRyNkLlfFE+4HMK6EsUBrh0rMjXwmkIPH

    s6ip8X1NuNTYgrmTww6z+kvy3UKlAh2OcJHrG/3pTmS50MzhKJTy7GblAmZSi0E=

    =MZwT

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----