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 < > [email protected]> 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 < > [email protected] > > 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> > >
