-
Type:
Bug
-
Resolution: Later
-
Priority:
Minor
-
Affects Version/s: ODF 1.2 CD 05
-
Component/s: Part 3 (Schema) [1.2: 1], Public Review, Schema and Datatypes
-
None
-
Dennis' proposal:
1. Remove the provision for <text
> or, if there are actually implementations that exist for this, deprecate it.2. Adopt <dc:description> as the optional companion to the <dc:creator> and <dc:date> elements that are already employed. This is all metadata.
Oliver's proposal:
Still allow <text> elements as comments for tracked changes, but restrict the child elements of the <text> element which occurs inside the <office:change-info>.Dennis' proposal: 1. Remove the provision for <text > or, if there are actually implementations that exist for this, deprecate it. 2. Adopt <dc:description> as the optional companion to the <dc:creator> and <dc:date> elements that are already employed. This is all metadata. Oliver's proposal: Still allow <text > elements as comments for tracked changes, but restrict the child elements of the <text > element which occurs inside the <office:change-info>.
The <office:change-info> element occurs within each of the three forms of <text:changed-region> element as a source of identifying information concerning the change being tracked. It is not part of the tracked-change material itself.
In addition to the basic identifying information, there may be one or more <text> elements for commentary about the change.
This is serious overkill. Not only can almost any possible content be introduced this way, but change tracking, index marks, tables of content, etc., are admissible.
It makes no sense to provide such a general provision for arbitrary text in what is basically a descriptive comment that may not even be implemented by any producers at this time. It is also not something that needs to be subject to the treatment of presentation in the same way as document content, including application of styles, incorporation of dynamic fields, cross-referencing, etc.
