Re: [office-metadata] summarizing recent suggestions

[Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us>]

On Feb 28, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Elias Torres wrote:

>> 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong Michael, but no. Rather, there are hard-coded 
text:* fields like "text:date" and such. We need something generic.

...

>> Yes, it's some kind of shorthand. But is is the notation we are using
>> already, so I would prefer to stay with it, if there are no strong
>> reasons not to do so.
>
> It's exactly how RDFa uses and depends on QNames.

"Depends" on?

It's just this is a big can-of-worms. In fact, RDFa does not use 
QNames, but rather CURIEs. And using QNames in content is *generally* 
bad practice. Indeed, we had a long thread on this WRT to the new 
formula stuff and the upshot was that they changed away from using them 
to some other short-hand.

I don't care if we use them, but we just need to be sure about it, and 
I don't think we should require them (not allow full URIs)?

Bruce