Subject: Re: [office] The desirability of xml:id stability
On 05.02.2013 14:26, Michael Stahl wrote:
The copy/paste of RDF metadata is unspecified as the behavior depends on the type of metadata (=> meta-metadata?).On 05/02/13 04:38, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:...It seems to me that there is a lot more to clean up before xml:id stability becomes important. It is my considered opinion that any such stability should be left to implementations and only if there is some sort of outcry for the need for interoperable implementation in a standard-specified way should anything be done about it at the ODF TC. And yes, an ODF 2.0 would likely be the place to address significant breaking differences with respect to ODF 1.x.as an aside, from an RDF metadata perspective a more serious open question is that when some content element is copied, the copy/paste of the RDF metadata referencing that element via its xml:id is left completely unspecified by ODF, which is unlikely to yield similar results in different implementation. (the problem is that the RDF graphs have no "natural hierarchy" (they are not trees), and of course by the very nature of the feature ODF implementations cannot assume particular semantics of the RDF properties that happen to be used in some file.)
Either only the module/plugin knowing about the metadata can
handle the metadata correctly, or my suggestion we require some
meta-metadata, as "moveable" that makes it understandable for
third party software, as the office itself.
Ceterum censeo, the xml:id is like a public API for a document,
the removal/change during a load/save roundtrip is similar to
changing the anchor IDs of an HTML page, breaking all references
into the document.