Re: [office-metadata] clarifying fields and metadata

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

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Elias Torres wrote:
>
>> I like this. Question: and we need text:meta-label because of the 
>> read-only
>> nature? If so, why not use text:field?
>
> Yeah, my question as well. It gets to the strategic vision of this 
> proposal, really. WRT to my other note, would we use this to support 
> conversion from OOXML structured fields, for example? If yes, should 
> we make clear that these are "fields"?
In the mail before I stated:
"We might have called the element text:meta-field if this name would not 
already make assumptions about the implementation. Furthermore, usually 
in ODF the element name describes the content."
Didn't we went away from the name field, as the implementation was too 
constraint?

Just a note regarding OOXML conversions although it is not on our agenda.
Whenever Sun will implement features supported by MS Office for 
OpenOffice.org that are not supported by ODF, we will propose an 
appropriate extension to ODF.
We would rather introduce new ODF elements/attributes instead of using 
metadata as it is rather an Office extension not metadata about the 
document.
Even for the case metadata is being used, the ODF specification would 
define the metadata itself (instead of a new element or attribute).

This is in general a topic for the TC, therefore I would suggest to 
stick on our SC goals, we have little time left.

Svante