[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Re: [office] Suggested ODF1.2 items
Hi everybody, Patrick Durusau wrote: > Florian, > > Florian Reuter wrote: > >> Hi Bruce, >> >> the problem here is that we need to be able to encode documents like >> >> <p><span/><field-start/><span/><p> >> <p><span/><field-end/></p> >> >> > Did you mean: > > <p><span/><field-start/><span/></p> > <p><span/><field-end/></p> > > > Ah, are both <field-start> and <field-end> empty elements? > > To put it another way: What is the content that is being surrounded by > the <field-*> tags? > The problem of marking an area that is not relative to the XML structure can be solved in different ways, I see two simple approaches: 1) As Florian suggested, using an empty start and end tag as marker: Florian's approach (a little more complicated example, by adding a further span) <p><span/><field-start/><span/></p> <p><span/><field-end/><span/></p> Pro - The size: Only two XML elements for marking the area Con - The new complexity for XML based applications: From the view of a XML element it is very hard to find out if part of a certain field/area or a field/area at all 2) By a 'concatenation' of elements using the same attribute: Let's call it the XML friendly approach: <p><span/><span meta:class="foo"/></p> <p><span meta:class="foo"><span/></p> Pro - Easy to handle for XML based applications: e.g. XSLT uses xsl:key Con - The Size: Often more than two XML attributes for marking an area Weighting the pro/con I see currently no reason to use the first approach and neglect the second, have I overseen something? Best regards, Svante
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]