incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From chengjh <chen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Date Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:49:12 GMT
Hi Kevin,you are right..

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon.oo@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 <
> > orwittmann@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.hamilton@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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message