office-collab — archive

[Thorsten Behrens]

Robin LaFontaine wrote: > John is I think correct in identifying a complexity here. It is not to do with > the use of XML representation, it is to do with the fact that a deleted > paragraph (say) is part of the counting before it is deleted but is not part of > the counting after it has been deleted. > Yes, but as outlined, that can be resolved with constant space and time overhead during import/export. > On input the application needs to work out the numerical references not only > for the actual document as read in but all its previous states as changes were > made. I think this will become clearer when there are some more complex worked > examples - it is almost impossible to work out without working code. > There should actually be no difference whatsoever to existing change tracking implementations - that translate the xml input into a special, internal DelThisStuff action, referencing the rather uniquely identified paragraph given by a numerical index. If you then subsequently adjust your index counters (for relative indices), or keep counting (for absolute ones) really shouldn't matter a bit. > Note: There seems to be a difference between collaboration (which references > the components in the document as it was before a change) rather than CT (which > references components in the document after the change). I am not sure which > way MCT works, I thought it was CT according to the earlier presentations, but > the Select Committee had all their examples as collaboration. It would be good > to have that clarified. > I was working under your 2nd assumption indeed (references relative to final document). Maybe that is the source for the misunderstanding? Cheers, -- Thorsten Behrens SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg; GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Attachment: pgpny9KneL4Z6.pgp Description: PGP signature