Re: [office] Re: [office-metadata] Re: [office] Suggested ODF1.2 items

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

Hi Patrick,

Patrick Durusau wrote:
> ...
>> Have you any bad feelings with the second attribute based approach?
>>
> If I am reading it correctly it looks like you have a milestone in the 
> first one and an open/close element in the second, although they are 
> concatenated. Yes?
How do you define a milestone, is a start/end tag a milestone? I guess 
here is a misunderstanding. I don't like approach of start & end flags. 
I will expand the example of the solution I prefer to the following:

<p><span/><span meta:class="foo"/><span 
meta:class="foo">blahblah</span></p>
<p><span meta:class="foo">something</span><span 
meta:class="foo"><span/></p>

All elements with @meta:class="foo" are of the same semantic and define 
an area, which is not related to the XML hierarchy.
In this special case - representing an alternative to a start & end tag 
- this area is a sequence of content, but it might be as well clustered 
all over the content.xml.
>
> Steve DeRose actually did a presentation at Extreme Markup on a 
> variation we developed for a Bible encoding project where there are 
> two milestone elements that are linked by startID and endID (only one 
> allowed in each) to deal with overlapping markup. Your xsl:key 
> suggestion would work here.
>
> I have misgivings about the use of a milestone plus a more normal 
> start/end tag. Mixing markup techniques as it were seems prone to 
> problems.
>
> Would you allow two milestones in addition to milestone plus a regular 
> element?
>
> That would give implementers two ways to accomplish the same end, not 
> often a good idea.
>
Hopefully the questions above settled by clarifying the intended approach.

Cheers,
Svante.