Re: [office-metadata] summarizing recent suggestions

[Elias Torres <eliast@us.ibm.com>]

Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote on 02/28/2007 09:28:57 AM:

> 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.

I like text:field then. :)

>
> Michael