OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Dear TC, the Advanced Collaboration SC has decided not to accept any further change-tracking (CT) proposals, unless being directed to do so by the TC [ 1 ]. Therefore I would like to ask you to direct the SC to accept my approach [ 2 , 3 , 4 ] as a new proposal. For those not following the discussions in detail, I would like to give a short subjective summary: Generic Change Tracking (GCT) proposal GCT uses solely the XML layer for tracking the changes. It has a generic approach, a very short specification and is very nice for ODF application using an XML model. For all ODF application not using an XML model it is problematic. It is sometimes very hard for their developers to find the correct mapping between the XML change and their application model. Extended Change Tracking (ECT) proposal ECT is extending the given ODF change-tracking. Similar to GCT it is tracking the ODF XML changes in the document. Collaboration based Change Tracking (CCT) proposal -- [NEW] CCT Collaboration Change tracking has its origin from collaboration. The design is already based on collaboration requirements. The goal was to unify a solution of change-tracking and future collaboration to avoid overlapping functionality and incompatibilities in the future. While every proposal needs to specify what minimum set of ODF changes should be supported to guarantee a consistent support, CCT also specifies what ODF XML change an operation will trigger. By doing so CCT is able to reference to the specified changes without tracking the XML change in detail in the document. Minimizing document size and simplifying CT to a maximum for users by abstracting the operation from the XML details. In addition to the usual change-tracking features, CCT might enable additional features related to collaboration features: Merging of documents (revealing unresolvable merge conflicts to the application/user) History functionality of document Applying changes to other documents Ability to save the work of off-line collaboration ... A future ODF collaboration approach might wire exact the same operation over the net being used for CT. The CT operation being the lingua franca of ODF, allowing even a browser (HTML) based office and OOo to have collaboration sessions. I am currently working on a formal proposal, extending the explanation earlier given on the SC list [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Kind regards, Svante [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-collab/201109/msg00038.html [2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-collab/201108/msg00023.html [3] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-collab/201108/msg00024.html [4] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-collab/201108/msg00025.html

On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:41 -0600, Svante Schubert wrote: > the Advanced Collaboration SC has decided not to accept any further > change-tracking (CT) proposals, unless being directed to do so by the > TC [1]. I am greatly disturbed by the idea that the decision in the Advanced Collaboration SC should be either one proposal or the other without any possibility of developing a description that draws on the strengths of both. I was not able to attend all ACSC calls but I am somewhat surprised that such a decision was supposedly made. I was under the impression that hte committee tried to work on a consensus basis. Andreas -- Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD, FTICA Concordia University College of Alberta

<office@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 09/22/2011 04:41:35 PM: <snip> > I am currently working on a formal proposal, extending the > explanation earlier given on the SC list [1, 2, 3, 4]. > We've had a SC looking at change tracking proposals for many months now, and they've made some good progress in developing their proposals. They are planning on sending a Draft Committee Note for public review next month. Integrating another proposal would delay that report. Not the end of the world, but that would be the impact. Each TC member is free to make up their own mind on this. It is not a decision for the TC Chair to make. But my personal vote would depend on how soon you could have your proposal ready, i.e., something that is developed to the same level as the existing two proposals. Can you commit to a date? -Rob Attachment: smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Am 23.09.2011 01:02, schrieb robert_weir@us.ibm.com: > <office@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 09/22/2011 04:41:35 PM: > > <snip> > >> I am currently working on a formal proposal, extending the >> explanation earlier given on the SC list [1, 2, 3, 4]. >> > We've had a SC looking at change tracking proposals for many months now, > and they've made some good progress in developing their proposals. They > are planning on sending a Draft Committee Note for public review next > month. Integrating another proposal would delay that report. Not the end > of the world, but that would be the impact. > > Each TC member is free to make up their own mind on this. It is not a > decision for the TC Chair to make. But my personal vote would depend on > how soon you could have your proposal ready, i.e., something that is > developed to the same level as the existing two proposals. Can you > commit to a date? > It would be developed to the same level as the existing two proposals and delivered within the next two weeks. - Svante

On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:02 -0600, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > <office@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 09/22/2011 04:41:35 PM: > > <snip> > > > I am currently working on a formal proposal, extending the > > explanation earlier given on the SC list [1, 2, 3, 4]. > > > > We've had a SC looking at change tracking proposals for many months now, > and they've made some good progress in developing their proposals. They > are planning on sending a Draft Committee Note for public review next > month. Integrating another proposal would delay that report. Not the end > of the world, but that would be the impact. > > Each TC member is free to make up their own mind on this. It is not a > decision for the TC Chair to make. But my personal vote would depend on > how soon you could have your proposal ready, i.e., something that is > developed to the same level as the existing two proposals. Can you > commit to a date? Interesting. There have been several comments made in response to concerns with the GCT, that this can be addressed within GCT, specifically with respect to making it clear which edits are represented by the various markup. SO may I assume that those changes will be incorporated in GCT proposal by that same deadline? Andreas -- Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD, FTICA Concordia University College of Alberta

Am 23.09.2011 01:02, schrieb robert_weir@us.ibm.com: > <office@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 09/22/2011 04:41:35 PM: > > <snip> > >> I am currently working on a formal proposal, extending the >> explanation earlier given on the SC list [1, 2, 3, 4]. >> > We've had a SC looking at change tracking proposals for many months now, > and they've made some good progress in developing their proposals. They > are planning on sending a Draft Committee Note for public review next > month. Integrating another proposal would delay that report. Not the end > of the world, but that would be the impact. > Just for clarification, only the draft might be blocked - although there is already plenty information about CCT available to start integrating as third proposal to the note - not blocked is the ability of the SC to continue its work. For instance, the SC could define the minimum set of change operations that an ODF application offering change-tracking should implement. This set is not defined yet and would be required by all proposals. This set is also known as our first CT milestone. No reason for stagnation. - Svante