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 La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd  "Experts in information change"
T: +44 1684 592 144  E:      
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 Cristian Bina
<oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger

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

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 La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd  "Experts in information change"
T: +44 1684 592 144
Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK