Chris.Rae at microsoft.com
Mon Nov 22 20:00:47 CET 2010
I've actually already written up the DR and suggested that Ecma submit it. I think that the wording that already existed in the standard in the following paragraph looked like it satisfactorily covered the answer:
All rsid* attributes throughout this document with the same value, if present, shall indicate that those regions were modified during the same editing session (time between subsequent save actions).
A producer can choose to increment the revision save ID value to indicate subsequent editing sessions to indicate the order of the modifications relative to other modifications in this document.
The text is copy-pasted into each of the attributes, which isn't ideal, but I couldn't think of a better place to put it.
From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk]
Sent: 22 November 2010 02:57
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: RE: rsid* attributes
> hm, so maybe a better wording would be, RSIDs are to be chosen in such
> a way as to "uniquely identify an editing session"?
And we can have an interesting time defining "editing session" normatively - perhaps we needn't be so prescriptive, but leave this as an implementation-dependant (/defined) feature. But the current wording is out-of-sync with what Word does and with what is implied elsewhere in the text ...
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
More information about the sc34wg4