- From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:20:07 +0200
- To: Dennis Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
- Cc: "public-change@w3.org" <public-change@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAK2GfHGn_TycGWDxKobcosG9LEPzSLFpno7NQZh_xtXwnHZLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Dennis, Let me try to rephrase I have a document D1 at t0 Modifications are made on D1 at a later time t1 ( t1 > t0 ) My understanding is if I REJECT ALL the modifications done on D1, I get back to D1 Is this "1.a" scenario ? If such, I don't get how 1.b could make sense unless we are in a ACCEPT ALL scenario Mohamed On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton < dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote: > I think there is a fundamental difference to be considered. It has to do > with answering the following question: > > 1. When the change-tracking information is all ignored, what remains, > a. The original unchanged XML document (the before-look), or > b. The fully-changed XML document (the after-look)? > > There may be a requirement here. > > At one point, I thought that it didn’t matter, in the sense that one form > could be transformed to the other (before removing the change-tracking). > Now, I am not so sure. > > The ODF representation for tracked changes has (1.b) as its default result > when change-tracking information is ignored. In an interoperability > setting, that seems to be the safest approach. > > There is one case where the before-look is needed and that is when the > document file is digitally signed and can’t be modified without that > counting as tampering. So however change is represented, it can’t touch > the original. One could still provide an after-look style of tracked > changes using a copy. That’s messier. Or one could use some sort of > supplemental information that accounts for changes to the original without > touching the original, a case that I touched on in my DChanges paper on > Protected Change-Tracking. This can be made a specialized problem, with > general change-tracking still handled with case (1.b). > > How does the choice between before-looks and after-looks come down in the > usage scenarios others are considering? > > > -- Dennis E. Hamilton > dennis.hamilton@acm.org +1-206-779-9430 > https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A > X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail > > > > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2014 16:20:40 UTC