From: David Chart (linux@dchart.demon.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 17 2002 - 15:13:56 EDT
On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 13:52, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>
>
> The way you avoid conflicts of the type "I mark it as deleted and
> you put it back in", is that, while in the revisions mode, you do not
> allow a text marked as to be deleted to be un-marked, instead the
> person who wants it back would have to retype it.
>
This doesn't strike me as particularly user-friendly. I'd like a
revision-stet attribute, which you add when you say that you don't like
a particular revision. If that revision level is active, then the
revision is nixed, although you should be able to see that it was made.
Thus, if reviser 1 deletes a sentence, reviser 2 stets it, and reviser 3
changes a word in the middle, the sentence would have revision-remove:1
revision-stet:2 and the word in the middle would have a two bits with
revision-{remove/add}:3 as properties. Then, if you wanted to reject all
of 2's revisions and accept all of 1's and 3's, Abi would give you a
conflict warning, and show you the relevant sentences.
I'm thinking about a text with two co-authors and an editor here. The
editor makes the first revisions, and then the co-authors get to look at
it in series, before it goes back to the editor for final decisions. If
the authors disagree with an editorial deletion, they shouldn't have to
retype the whole deletion.
And, of course, if you save a document with revision information not
currently displayed, Abi will warn you (by default). We've all heard the
Word horror stories, right?
-- David Chart
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 17 2002 - 15:17:57 EDT