Re: [office-metadata] summarizing recent suggestions

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Elias,

Elias Torres wrote:
> Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote on 02/28/2007 08:44:11 AM:
> 
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> On Feb 28, 2007, at 4:04 AM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 -
>>> Hamburg wrote:
>>>
>>>> What about calling the field just "text:meta", or "text:metadata", or
>>>> "text:metadata-label" (I think the term label was suggested by Bruce)?
> 
>>>> If the name shall contain the term "field", then "text:meta-field"
>>>> would be an option.
>>>>
>>>> My personal favorite actually is "text:metadata" or
>>>> "text:metadata-label".
>>> I really have no strong opinion on this. I just chose the element names
> 
>>> to have something concrete to discuss. Does anyone else have any
>>> opinions on the matter?
>> I also have no strong opinion on this. So just take this as some
>> suggestions, except that we should style with the "text" namespace for
>> consistency reasons.
> 
> I'll ask again, isn't there already a field element in the text:namespace
> that we can re-use instead of creating a new one? All we need to do is
> either add an xml:id or RDFa-like attributes to it.

No, there unfortunately isn't. All text field elements that do exist 
have already a certain purpose, and there is no generic text field 
elements whose only property is to be field.


Michael