Re: [office-metadata] Metadata only for Content

[Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM>]

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Svante Schubert wrote:
>
>> 2) But for example "office:body" only contains indirectly Metadata, 
>> for instance by having a "text:p" descendant, which might be a child 
>> of "office:text".
>> "office:body" itself may only contain elements 6 different XML 
>> elements, it does not directly contain user data (no text data nor 
>> binary data).
>
> But we wouldn't want to have "office:body" as such a 
> metadata-enhanceable document object, would we?
Why not? It might represent the whole document.

> I presume you might be thinking about something like a table or image 
> wrapper? Would they fit this category?
You mean the ODF elements "draw:image" and "table:table", right?
Both would fit into the category of "Documents Objects Described with 
Metadata".
But they would go into different sub-categories, as "draw:image" might 
directly contain user-data (i.e. binary-data), where the element 
"table:table" only contains row and column elements, but no user data as 
child.
>
> BTW, for those that might not be familiar with it, the language I used 
> to author the schema fragments on the wikis is RELAX NG, but the 
> compact non-XML syntax. It's much easier to read and write, and when 
> we're ready to put together a final proposal, trivial to convert to 
> the XML syntax (using Trang, the wonder tool).
Nice.
BTW a volunteer, might as transform the whole RELAX NG syntax of the 
spec to the compact non-XML syntax.
By this the syntax is more readable and furthermore the size of the spec 
would shrink. Robert have you not mentioned this on the OOo Conference? 
Would you like to do it?

Svante.