Re: [office] Re: [office-metadata] Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal

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

On Jun 30, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Thomas Zander wrote:

> an ODF implementation does not only have to know about a feature
> like "xml:id" it has to have a data structure to store it and then 
> write
> it back afterwards.

I realize foreign child elements are another -- more complicated -- 
matter, so let's put that aside.

But attributes are just unordered key-values; why can't any application 
just store all attributes (or at least those it doesn't know about) in 
a hash such that it can write them back out without any particular 
knowledge?

Likewise, what's the practical problem with saying applications need to 
maintain package files?

To take Patrick's hypothetical (but quite reasonable) example further 
in a different direction: what happens if I decide to be malicious, and 
I write a little script that goes through an ODF file and removes all 
optional attributes from the content file and all non-essential files 
from the package. I call my script "The Super ODF File Enhancer" or 
some such.

Would it be valid to call my application an officially compliant ODF 
application? Do we even know what that means such that we can answer 
that question?

I don't think saying "let the market decide" is an adequate answer. We 
need to have real answers for these questions, because the future 
success of ODF is going to depend on reliable document exchange among 
disparate applications, with disparate feature sets.

Bruce