Re: [office-metadata] IRC meeting minutes - 03/30

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:45 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:

> [Fri:17:28:02] <Svante> Does anybody understand Brucd' concern to  
> restrict text:meta-field to xml:id OR m:about/m:property
> [Fri:17:28:12] <Svante> To have only one of these?
> [Fri:17:29:24] * EliasT thought we were moving away from xml:id

Yes, let me repeat what I wrote in an earlier message, because it's  
important.

... we can still identify the general semantics. For example, we  
could say:

The metadata field contains one or more references to resource  
descriptions, and may contain optional parameters as namespaced  
attributes. The target object shall be represented as an IRI.

It's simple, and it's clear.

That's my preference, irrespective of specific encoding suggestions.

All of this discussion of the field currently is incredibly vague,  
and it has practical consequences for implementations.

Bruce