"Dave Pawson" <>
wrote on 07/14/2008 02:48:08 PM:
>
> 2008/7/14 <>:
> >
> >
> > "Dave Pawson" <> wrote on
07/14/2008 01:43:00 PM:
>
> >> > This is why I suggested we might want to concentrate
on how the
> >> data is represented ON DISK as opposed to ON SCREEN.
> >>
> >>
> >> Is that of interest to others?
> >> If I create a (valid) odf document, save it to disk
> >> should it remain unchanged in terms of content when it passes
through
> >> another application?
> >> I guess metadata will change (date last edited etc), but
stuff the user
> >> wrote?
> >> Should that remain 'fixed' (markup + content?)
>
> >
> > I would suspect that the vast majority of useful document processing
> > applications will change the input document in someway,
>
> That wasn't the question Rob.
>
And that wasn't an answer, Dave. It was an observation.
> I asked if list members were interested in retaining content (metadata
> excluded, as stated)
>
But you have not been able to express this in a way
the allows the user to use an application to intentionally alter content.
If we say that an application cannot change the content of a document,
then we just prohibited word processors. If we allow applications
to change content as directed by the user, then we are reduced to "Don't
do anything unexpected".
>
> > In fact the main advantage of an open format like ODF is that
it makes it
> > easier to write applications that can read/write/create/modify
ODF
> > documents.
>
> I did state, if user content is unchanged. I.e. it's the app
> thats messing with user content or markup. (metadata excluded, as
stated)
>
Users don't change anything. Only applications
change ODF. Until humans evolve the ability to directly change electromagnetic
encodings with their fingertips, this will remain true.
> >
> > I suspect what you really want
>
> I know what I want.
Every has wants. That is not an interesting.
The question is whether you can express what you want as a provision
in a standard.
-Rob
