Bruce,
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
On Mar 1, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Elias Torres wrote:
Right. I guess even more fundamental, do we
even want to treat in-
content vs. RDF/XML differently? We expect RDF/XML properties to be
plain literals by default after all.
I don't understand this.
Maybe it doesn't make much sense, but ...
We've made much of the fact that in the attribute + RDF/XML approach,
we have a common model, and so a common way to deal with structured
data. Am just wondering if this should inckude data-typing.
Even in our first draft of the proposal we had some data-typing:
-
The
optional attributes “meta:value-type” and “meta:value” may extend the
existing Office value types (see 6.7.1 Variable Value Types and
Values), which should otherwise be used.
[Ed.Note: The common value type attribute list should only be expanded,
if the already offered datatypes do not fit.]
Yesterday you mentioned some type attribute to give a hint to find the
plug-in.
Although the final data-typing mechanism is not clear to me yet, I
believe we will have one in two weeks.
Svante
|