incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Date Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:36:49 GMT
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?

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>
>
>

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