openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From chengjh <>
Subject Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Date Wed, 04 Jul 2012 02:41:22 GMT
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 <
> 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

>  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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: chengjh []
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 00:25
> To:;
> 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 <
> > 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
> 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

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