office-collab — archive

[Andreas Guelzow]

On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 11:13 -0600, Robin LaFontaine wrote: > 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? > ) Yes of course I meant to say ...GCT... > > Please see > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-collab/201106/msg00010.html > for a general comment on approach. I had obviously read that message before. Unfortunately we do not even seem to agree on the basic concepts. For me a document has many ODF xml representations and changing between those representations does not represent a document change, so while GCT may be well suited to for recording changes in the representation I fail to see how it can be used successfully to recognize changes to the document itself. > > 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. I think there is fundamentally a difference between recording document changes and recording changes in xml-representation. Andreas -- Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD, FTICA Concordia University College of Alberta This is a digitally signed message part