From: Tomas Frydrych (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 17 2002 - 15:44:33 EDT
> > 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.
It is exactly how Word works, so I expect that is what the users
would expect / put up with. But then why not do it better.
> 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
That will only work up to 3 changes to the same text, but we could
allow the revision-remove and revision-add attributes to carry
multiple revision ID's, and this way we could achieve an infinite
depth of such changes even without the revision-stet attribute.
What I am not sure about is how to indicate in the text, in a
sensible way, the number of actual changes associate with a
particular piece of text. The advantage of my previous suggestion
was that you never had a piece of text belonging to more than two
revisions, but I am sure we can come up with something.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 17 2002 - 15:53:22 EDT