Re: [office-metadata] Finding a common proposal..

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

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> On Dec 6, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Svante Schubert wrote:
>
>>> Moreover, you are being inconsistent: doing what you are asking 
>>> about requires us to use an RDFa-like mechanism.
>
>> Why? What design implies my suggestion?
>
> Because you are saying that all metadata-related visible content must 
> be encoded as such (as metadata). You are not allowing me to have a 
> plain text label that stands in for that. Therefore, you will force me 
> to use a mechanism like RDFa (e.g. some sort of attributes on existing 
> content elements) without any clear benefit for my use case.
Maybe I stated it wrong. The citation itself does not have to be 
metadata itself. But it will be subject of meta data, as somehow the 3rd 
party plug-in have to know where the citation starts and ends, which 
have to be exchanged to a different format.

>
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it is unworkable to say 
> that metadata cannot be encoded in content.xml. It's not possible to 
> cover our use cases without allowing that and defining how to do it.
I asked you twice to talk it over by phone, maybe it is just a 
miscommunication between us, but now I have a 1,5h call.
Again I do not say we have to choose this design or the other, I simply 
state reasons, why one might be in favor and ask to give explanations 
for different sights.
We can go on for hours, if we do not argue with arguments and examples.
I am running out of time due to other projects and I am not sure if will 
be able to respond on your mails in timely manner. Be sure this is no 
provocation, just a problem of schedule.
>
> Moreover, it's unworkable to do it in any other way than using 
> attributes on existing (hard-coded) odf elements (and maybe adding a 
> new field for this). The alternative is to allow arbitrary elements in 
> content, and that won't fly.
Svante