Hi Kevin,you are right.. On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon...@gmail.com>wrote:
> KG 01 - Excuse top post. Proposal looks great. What is the impact/risk on > the UI? How might we improve the user experience? Perhaps a task pane with > threaded comments and available actions? > > Good idea.In this improvement,we will have UI changes and provide better user experiences.Currently,we have not started the progress yet..I appreciate your further proposals and actions on this part.Thanks in advance. > On Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 10.07.2012 09:14, chengjh wrote: > > > >> 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> > >> <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. > >> > >> > > I am sorry. I have corrected the access rights on [1]. Now, you should be > > able to access it. > > > > [1] http://people.apache.org/~orw/**210-209-1-PB.pdf< > http://people.apache.org/~orw/210-209-1-PB.pdf> > > > > > > Best regards, Oliver. > > > > 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> > > <http://**people.apache.org/~orw/210-**209-1-P< > http://people.apache.org/~orw/210-209-1-PB.pdf> > > > > > -- Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
