You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by chengjh <ch...@apache.org> on 2012/07/03 05:33:29 UTC
[Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of Writer's
Track Changes Improvement
Hi All,
As we know,Track Changes is one of the most important features in a
document editing application,such as the Apache OpenOffice.org Writer.It
provides to track history changes within a document and review a shared
document between different roles in an internal and collaborative
environment.Through this feature,end users can conveniently distinguish
each roles' revised changes and review comments when working on the same
document,especially within a complex reviewing process.
Although,Apache OpenOffice.org Writer has also provided the Track Changes
feature, there are existing very obviously feature gaps comparing with MS
Word.Please refer to the details from
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Comparison_and_GAP.Of
course, the interoperability fidelity with MS Word is poor..Because of the
obviously feature gaps,we have received some requirements to improve the
function area, and been raised some defects too.Please refer to the classic
ones from
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Requirement
.
In order to decrease the feature gaps,especially improve the
interoperability fidelity with MS Word, we have taken some investigation
and tried to understand the current implementation
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Current_Design
deeply.
And then, based on the our current knowledge and understanding,we have
worked out a design proposal
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_Proposals
for
your review. The proposal is just the beginning, and now open for review
and discussion.
For our same goal to make Apache OpenOffice.org successful, I appreciate
your comments and contribution to the improvement. Your ideas and comments
will not be limited to the current design proposal,breakthrough thinking
welcomed..Expecting your involvement.Thanks.
Reference:
[1] Track Changs Wiki::
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges
[2] OASIS ODF TC on Track Changes:
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Change%20Tracking%20Meta%20Requirements
--
Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of
Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Posted by chengjh <ch...@apache.org>.
Hi Kevin,you are right..
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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?
>
> Good idea.In this improvement,we will have UI changes and provide better
user experiences.Currently,we have not started the progress yet..I
appreciate your further proposals and actions on this part.Thanks in
advance.
> 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 <
> > orwittmann@googlemail.com> 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 <
> > dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> >
> > 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>
> >
> >
>
--
Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of
Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Posted by Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>.
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 <
> orwittmann@googlemail.com> 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 <
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>
> 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>
>
>
Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of Writer's
Track Changes Improvement
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
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>
> 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
Best regards, Oliver.
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
> orwittmann@googlemail.com> 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 <
>>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>>>
>>>> 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>
>>
>>
>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: chengjh [mailto:chengjh@apache.org]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 00:25
>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>>>> 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 <
>>>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/**
>>>> ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_**Principles<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_Principles>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of
Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Posted by chengjh <ch...@apache.org>.
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>
either..Could you please send your presentation to me?thanks.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
orwittmann@googlemail.com> 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 <
>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>>
>>> 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>
>
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: chengjh [mailto:chengjh@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 00:25
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>>> 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 <
>>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/**
>>> ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_**Principles<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_Principles>
>>> 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
Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of Writer's
Track Changes Improvement
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
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 <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>> 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
Best regards, Oliver.
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: chengjh [mailto:chengjh@apache.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 00:25
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>> 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 <
>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>>> 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
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_Principles
>> 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.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of
Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Posted by chengjh <ch...@apache.org>.
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 <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> 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.
> 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 [mailto:chengjh@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 00:25
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> 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 <
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> > 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
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_Principles
> 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
RE: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
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?
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?
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?
-----Original Message-----
From: chengjh [mailto:chengjh@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 00:25
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
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 <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> 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
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_Principles
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.
[ ... ]
Re: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of
Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Posted by chengjh <ch...@apache.org>.
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 <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> wrote:
> I have some concerns.
>
> First, the meta-requirements Wiki page was last updated on 2012-03-12 and
> there has been on-going turmoil at the ODF TC on which of three proposals
> will be refined into an ODF 1.3 improvement. There is no resolution,
> although there is some major discussion to occur in the ODF TC Conference
> calls in the next few weeks.
>
a)The meta-requirements collected and discussed in the Wiki contain broad
scope..And we have submitted our requirements to the group..currently,we
are keeping an eye on its progress.
>
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
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_Principles
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.
>
Also, do the proposed improvements favor one of the three proposals or
> borrow some elements from each? Is it a completely separate improvement to
> the existing ODF 1.2 provisions (as badly-specified as they might be)? Is
> it designed toward interoperability with the functionality of Microsoft
> Word documents and convertibility with .doc or OOXML Word Processing
> (.docx, basically)?
>
> c)Please provide the three proposals that will be taken as OASIS ODF
standard, I am not clear about them. We can refer it during improving our
solution.Thanks.
Currently,our proposals focus on the interoperability
fidelity improvements with MS Word,the binary format is our first goal,and
OOXML is followed. Actually, ODF limitations are not our first
consideration to improve when working on the new design because I think the
perfect solution is the most important..we are still working to find it
out..Once the solution is ready, I think the ODF should not be a problem.
> Without understanding the improvements in terms of what users perceive and
> can manipulate, and how it is conveyed in the persistent document(s), it is
> very difficult to assess the proposal.
>
> d)When the customers are using AOO/Symphony, especially they exchange
document with MS Word, the track changes feature becomes a blocker. It
blocks end users to move from MS Office to AOO..So,they demand us to
improve the function area to meet their requirements in time.
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chengjh [mailto:chengjh@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 20:33
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of
> Writer's Track Changes Improvement
>
> Hi All,
>
> As we know,Track Changes is one of the most important features in a
> document editing application,such as the Apache OpenOffice.org Writer.It
> provides to track history changes within a document and review a shared
> document between different roles in an internal and collaborative
> environment.Through this feature,end users can conveniently distinguish
> each roles' revised changes and review comments when working on the same
> document,especially within a complex reviewing process.
>
> Although,Apache OpenOffice.org Writer has also provided the Track Changes
> feature, there are existing very obviously feature gaps comparing with MS
> Word.Please refer to the details from
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Comparison_and_GAP.Of
> course, the interoperability fidelity with MS Word is poor..Because of the
> obviously feature gaps,we have received some requirements to improve the
> function area, and been raised some defects too.Please refer to the classic
> ones from
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Requirement
> .
>
> In order to decrease the feature gaps,especially improve the
> interoperability fidelity with MS Word, we have taken some investigation
> and tried to understand the current implementation
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Current_Design
> deeply.
> And then, based on the our current knowledge and understanding,we have
> worked out a design proposal
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_Proposals
> for
> your review. The proposal is just the beginning, and now open for review
> and discussion.
>
> For our same goal to make Apache OpenOffice.org successful, I appreciate
> your comments and contribution to the improvement. Your ideas and comments
> will not be limited to the current design proposal,breakthrough thinking
> welcomed..Expecting your involvement.Thanks.
>
>
> Reference:
> [1] Track Changs Wiki::
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges
> [2] OASIS ODF TC on Track Changes:
> https://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Change%20Tracking%20Meta%20Requirements
>
> --
> Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
>
>
--
Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
RE: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I have some concerns.
First, the meta-requirements Wiki page was last updated on 2012-03-12 and there has been on-going turmoil at the ODF TC on which of three proposals will be refined into an ODF 1.3 improvement. There is no resolution, although there is some major discussion to occur in the ODF TC Conference calls in the next few weeks.
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?
Also, do the proposed improvements favor one of the three proposals or borrow some elements from each? Is it a completely separate improvement to the existing ODF 1.2 provisions (as badly-specified as they might be)? Is it designed toward interoperability with the functionality of Microsoft Word documents and convertibility with .doc or OOXML Word Processing (.docx, basically)?
Without understanding the improvements in terms of what users perceive and can manipulate, and how it is conveyed in the persistent document(s), it is very difficult to assess the proposal.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: chengjh [mailto:chengjh@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 20:33
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [Review|Discussion]For Ideas and Comments on the Vision of Writer's Track Changes Improvement
Hi All,
As we know,Track Changes is one of the most important features in a
document editing application,such as the Apache OpenOffice.org Writer.It
provides to track history changes within a document and review a shared
document between different roles in an internal and collaborative
environment.Through this feature,end users can conveniently distinguish
each roles' revised changes and review comments when working on the same
document,especially within a complex reviewing process.
Although,Apache OpenOffice.org Writer has also provided the Track Changes
feature, there are existing very obviously feature gaps comparing with MS
Word.Please refer to the details from
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Comparison_and_GAP.Of
course, the interoperability fidelity with MS Word is poor..Because of the
obviously feature gaps,we have received some requirements to improve the
function area, and been raised some defects too.Please refer to the classic
ones from
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Requirement
.
In order to decrease the feature gaps,especially improve the
interoperability fidelity with MS Word, we have taken some investigation
and tried to understand the current implementation
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Current_Design
deeply.
And then, based on the our current knowledge and understanding,we have
worked out a design proposal
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges#Design_Proposals
for
your review. The proposal is just the beginning, and now open for review
and discussion.
For our same goal to make Apache OpenOffice.org successful, I appreciate
your comments and contribution to the improvement. Your ideas and comments
will not be limited to the current design proposal,breakthrough thinking
welcomed..Expecting your involvement.Thanks.
Reference:
[1] Track Changs Wiki::
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/TrackChanges
[2] OASIS ODF TC on Track Changes:
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Change%20Tracking%20Meta%20Requirements
--
Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng