Re: [office-metadata] Revision and stable ids (was: Re: [office-metadata] Rought notes 14 March)

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

On Mar 15, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:

> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>>> I would then infer that in-context metadata would only be used for 
>>> non-revision specific information.
>>
>> This gets us back to the fields. I would call the field information 
>> (subject URI and parameters) to be "non-revision specific." For that 
>> reason, I would actually say we should exclude the xml:id approach on 
>> fields and require subject (or object?) URIs on them.
> I guess xml:id is not only intended to be used by metadata, somebody 
> else might want to identify (e.g. point at) such an element, therefore 
> I think xml:id should not be removed here.

OK. I'm just saying that the URI(s) should not be optional for the 
metadata purposes. Whether we allow xml:id for other purposes doesn't 
matter to me.

To me, the problem with the fields and xml:id is the same problem Elias 
had with trying to use xml:id for in-content literals. But we need to 
explain clearly that logic.

If we all understand why I am saying this and it makes sense, then we 
need to come up with clear language to explain why.

Bruce