Hi David,
> > The way you avoid conflicts of the type "I mark it as deleted and > > you put it back in", is that, while in the revisions mode, you do > > not allow a text marked as to be deleted to be un-marked, instead > > the person who wants it back would have to retype it. > > This doesn't strike me as particularly user-friendly. It is exactly how Word works, so I expect that is what the users would expect / put up with. But then why not do it better. > I'd like a revision-stet attribute, which you add when you say that you don't > like a particular revision. If that revision level is active, then the > revision is nixed, although you should be able to see that it was > made. That will only work up to 3 changes to the same text, but we could allow the revision-remove and revision-add attributes to carry multiple revision ID's, and this way we could achieve an infinite depth of such changes even without the revision-stet attribute. What I am not sure about is how to indicate in the text, in a sensible way, the number of actual changes associate with a particular piece of text. The advantage of my previous suggestion was that you never had a piece of text belonging to more than two revisions, but I am sure we can come up with something. Tomas
