W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-change@w3.org > September 2014

Re: Before-Looks or After-Looks

From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:20:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAK2GfHGn_TycGWDxKobcosG9LEPzSLFpno7NQZh_xtXwnHZLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dennis Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
Cc: "public-change@w3.org" <public-change@w3.org>

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


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
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2014 16:20:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:11:23 UTC