On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > > Robin LaFontaine wrote: > > 5. "GCT ... represents a great change to the ODF format. It would require a > > substantial overhead, both for XML and non-XML implementations of ODF. > > Particularly when compared to the operations proposal which we discuss below. > > The select committee cannot recommend GCT as the proposal to “fix” change > > tracking in ODF." > > > > This statement that GCT has a more substantial overhead than MCT seems to be a > > bold declaration, given that MCT is some considerable way away from being fully > > defined. Please would you add an explanation of this for the record as you are > > asking the TC to base the future direction of ODF on this. > > > Hi Robin, > > representing one of the ODF consumers without an internal XML model, > I can tell you that there were grave concerns, if not for the > implementability, but at the very least for the substantial > retooling costs this would have incurred. To the point that people > were advocating to ignore this part of ODF, should it become a > standard. Since I represent another ODF consumer/producer, I guess it may be time for me to reiterate that I also consider GCT unimplementable by our development team. Andreas -- Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD, FTICA Concordia University College of Alberta Attachment: signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part