- From: Robin LaFontaine <robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:07:16 +0000
- To: public-change@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51275164.50506@deltaxml.com>
I changedthe title so easier to follow this thread - an important topic. There is a lot of experience and code around using PIs in editing applications and IMHO a PI representation for CT (Change Tracking) is necessary. My hope is that we can have the best of both worlds if we can define a bi-directional and loss-less transformation between an element/attribute CT representation and a PI one. Robin On 22/02/2013 07:51, Daniel Glazman wrote: > On 21/02/13 22:56, Casey Jordan wrote: > >> We use PI's as well, as Tom said there are many benefits. However we >> only use the PI's to markup the regions and assign a small amount of >> metadata (username, unique id etc), any comments or other information >> associated with the change are stored outside the document in a >> database. This way, if the change get's removed, accepted, or rejected, >> the information surrounding it lives on in an audit record. This has >> been very important for our customers. > > That's _really_ interesting because the HTML zealots never consider > PIs as a potential solution to our real-life problems in editing > environments ou publishing chains, they always base all their solutions > on elements and attributes only, and that of course tweaks the structure > of the document. > > </Daniel> > -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd "Experts in information change" T: +44 1684 592 144 E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com http://www.deltaxml.com Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 11:07:49 UTC