office-collab — archive

[Patrick Durusau]

And isn't there another set of cases? This discussion seems to assume that the application actors all understand (all) change tracking. What about round-tripping of a document through an application that doesn't understand change tracking? It should be able to preserve CT in areas of the document that it doesn't modify. With relative referencing, even changes in other parts of the document can invalidate that, right? Imagine a simple doc with a few sentences. User 1 in app 1 which understands CT deletes the third sentence and tracks the change. This is persisted outside the main text as a deletion of the 3rd sentence. User 1 sends the doc to user 2 who uses app 2 which doesn't support change tracking. User 2 adds a new sentence at the beginning of the paragraph. That reference to deleting the 3rd sentence is now wrong and the doc will display incorrectly when user 2 sends it back to user 1. Further, I suppose this new relative referencing design means that all ODF clients MUST support CT to avoid breaking documents and so that they display the doc correctly? One of the tenets I had in considering ECT was to preserve the current behavior where simpler ODF clients didn't need to understand change tracking and the content in content.xml would always represent the "latest" state of the doc (as if all changes were accepted). This latter concept was important enough that the GCT proposal was modified to allow for it. Does MCT change both of these tenets now? Perhaps I'm missing something big, since there's no single collection of the bottom line of MCT in one place; I may be missing something that's in the presentation and hundred or so e-mails. John