[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Binding proposal
Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Svante Schubert wrote: > >> Bruce D'Arcus wrote: >>>> I would not request UUID as uniqueness is known to be fragile. >>> Do you have a source for this claim? AFAIK, the UUID scheme is >>> widely implemented in software, and is quite reliable. MS uses it, >>> as but one example. >> UUID in the context of a document, to express the uniqueness off a >> document is fragile, when the document can simply be copied and the >> UUID is no longer unique. >> UUID in the context of software interface is a nice thing. There is >> no interface copy command in software environments. > > But you're not solving the problem: you're avoiding it. Using "odf:.." > as you propose is functionally the same as using "file:///..." The odf: would only refer into the same ODF package, it is not relative to the document location, by this different to file:// Bruce, maybe we should not try to solve the problem of document identification in the document as there are risks we can not control: Some XSLT / webapplication / ODF application might not exchange the revision ID, but the document. Why should we burden the identification effort to an ODF application, when in the end a guaranteed identification would be made from the outside? What do we really gain? The UUID tells nothing about the document type nor the location. Whenever we analyze the metadata of a document, I am sure we would rather have a link to the document or could use some more verbose identification mechanism as sender/time/etc. Is the introduced complexity really worth it's gain? Svante
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]