Oliver,I can not access http://www.ooocon.org/ to get your presentation for 2010 conf..And I am not authorized to access http://people.apache.org/~orw/**210-209-1-PB.pdf<http://people.apache.org/~orw/210-209-1-PB.pdf> either..Could you please send your presentation to me?thanks.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann < orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 04.07.2012 04:41, chengjh wrote: > >> Hi Dennis,I appreciate your questions,they are significant areas we have >> to >> take carefully.Thanks. >> >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton < >> dennis.hamil...@acm.org >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> I have questions about the way that the improvements are intended to be >>> extensions to the ODF format. >>> >>> I understand from what is said that improvements are introduced into the >>> ODF document in a way that they will be ignored by older implementations >>> and other implementations that are unaware of them. The intention is to >>> map to and from .doc in a reliable manner. >>> >>> >> 1. How are the extensions introduced such that conforming ODF consumers >> >>> will ignore them properly? Will users be able to turn off the >>> improvements >>> in order to produce conforming ODF documents? >>> >>> a)That's a good question.Because current ODF formats on Track Changes are >>> >> limited,that means only limited capabilities are able to be supported. In >> order to achieve our goal to improve the fidelity with MS Word, we have to >> extend Track Changes ODF formats and propose to OASIS ODF to become >> standard at the end.Thus,the compatibility with previous releases will be >> a >> challenging job.Our strategy is that the current import/export code logic >> on Track Changes will be kept to ensure the same supported change records >> defined in ODF 1.1/1.2 as before in our improved solution.If >> possible,the extended >> parts will be implemented with another code logic,not mixed, to ensure >> these parts will not be recognized by previous releases. >> >> b)And also,it seems a good idea to provide an option item in >> "Tools->Options...->Writer->**Compatibility" to turn on/off the >> improvements.Thanks. >> >> > This can be already handled in general. > As mentioned in my presentation at OOoCon 2010 (especially slide 14ff) [1] > we already have the ODF format version field. On this field we can depend > our (not yet in ODF available) features//enhancements/**improvements/... > > > >> 2. Will ignoring the extensions result in an usable conforming ODF >>> document and will round-trip return to the producer of the extensions be >>> tolerable. Should there be warning when an user makes changes that rely >>> on >>> the improvements in a document that was not produced by an >>> improvement-aware implementation? >>> >>> >> c) We should avoid to generate un-usable ODF document,otherwise,the design >> should have problem.. >> d) I don't think it necessary to give warning message to end users when >> saving changes records with our improvements..I think it better for an >> application to enable a mechanism to provide warning message to end users >> when identifying un-recognized info. >> >> >>> 3. How are the improvement extensions to the ODF format being made >>> known >>> so that other consumers of ODF can support them either partially or >>> completely to provide a smoother experience in support of their users and >>> in providing interoperability? >>> >>> >> e)Finally,our improvements on the ODF formats on Track Changes will be >> proposed and taken as OASIS ODF standards. >> >> > In general I think we should align our change tracking enhancements with > the work currently going on in the ODF TC regarding change tracking. The > work in the ODF TC should more or less guide how we represent/express our > change tracking enhancements in ODF. > > [1] > http://people.apache.org/~orw/**210-209-1-PB.pdf<http://people.apache.org/~orw/210-209-1-PB.pdf> > > > Best regards, Oliver. > > > > >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: chengjh [mailto:chen...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 00:25 >>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org >>> Subject: Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of >>> Writer's Track Changes Improvement >>> >>> Hi Dennis, >>> >>> Thanks for your feedback.Please say my a),b),c) and d). >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton < >>> dennis.hamil...@acm.org >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> [ ... ] >>> >>> Because of this, it is important to understand how your proposed Track >>>> Changes Improvement will be reflect in the ODF 1.2 documents consumed >>>> and >>>> produced by Apache OpenOffice at this time. That is, what needs to be >>>> >>> done >>> >>>> in the format, if anything, and how is interoperable communication of >>>> >>> that >>> >>>> handled in the persistent document? >>>> >>>> >>> b) One of the significant principles of the improvement is to keep >>> compatibility >>> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/** >>> ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_**Principles<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_Principles> >>> with >>> previous releases of AOO/Symphony in order to ensure the persistent >>> document. The new formats saved in the improvement will be lost when >>> being >>> launched into old versions' AOO/Symphony. >>> >>> [ ... ] >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
