W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-change@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Attribute changes as attributes or markup?

From: George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:21:55 +0300
Message-ID: <51AC5223.2090501@oxygenxml.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:11:22 UTC