- From: George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:21:55 +0300
- To: Robin LaFontaine <robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com>
- CC: public-change@w3.org
Thanks Robin for clarifying this! Best Regards, George -- George Cristian Bina <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger http://www.oxygenxml.com On 6/3/13 11:15 AM, Robin LaFontaine wrote: > George, > > Yes, you are missing something.. which I should have stated here! The > proposal is to have a processing instruction representation as an > alternative form. In the original submission I said: > >> The goal would be to have bi-directional and loss-less transformation >> between three representations for the same info: >> 1. Regular XML markup (probably the normative form) >> 2. Processing instructions (so document is valid against its schema >> because all change tracking is in PIs) >> 3. External representation so change tracking is in another document > So 2 is certainly necessary, but the discussion here is about 1 and how > that should be. I think we should get the best form for 1 and then > ensure that 2 and 3 are the best for their use case also - and the use > case for 2 is certainly XML editors - we will not forget that use case, > it is very important! > > Sorry I should have made that clearer - I hope it is clear now. > > Best regards, > Robin > > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > On 02/06/2013 06:41, George Cristian Bina wrote: >> Hi Robin, >> >> As an authoring tool, if we will record changes in content or in >> attributes as additional elements or attributes I think that will not >> be acceptable my many of our users, because their documents will >> become invalid. That is why we use now processing instructions. >> In your message below you show only a choice between recording these >> changes as attributes or elements... Maybe I am missing something? >> >> Best Regards, >> George >> -- >> George Cristian Bina >> <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger >> http://www.oxygenxml.com >> >> On 5/31/13 1:03 PM, Robin LaFontaine wrote: >>> Another issue where views of the group would be welcome is in >>> representing changes to attributes. Two choices again seem to be >>> available: >>> >>> 1. In attributes: Represent changes to attributes in other attributes - >>> the advantage of this is that less change is needed to the structure of >>> the document. Against is that this will clutter up an element open tag >>> if there are lots of changes, and some parsing of the attribute value is >>> needed. >>> >>> 2. As markup: Represent changes in structured markup, probably as the >>> first child element. Easier to process with XSLT. Against is more change >>> to structure of the document. >>> >>> More details in the Generic Change Tracking draft spec. >>> >>> It would be good to have any comments on this. >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 Monday, 3 June 2013 08:22:33 UTC