On 6/8/07, Mathias Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> In talking about this with the metadata subcommittee, we have come to
> the conclusion this is not a good idea. The text:meta-field is
> sufficient to implement robust citation support, and introducing
> another field for that means it is less likely to be supported in
> different ODF implementations.
Fine; I hope that you also will specify the citation metadata then.
Using unspecified metadata for *relevant* parts of the document in OOo
can be the starting signal to kill ODF.
If current citations don't work AT ALL outside of OOo, that's a
serious problem that hasn't been at all helped by the fact that's it's
fully specified in the spec.
I think you worry too much; the metadata support will be a huge
innovation opportunity for ODF and OOo, and it will be better than MS
custom schema support because it is based on a common (W3C standard)
model.
So it will have the flexibility of custom schemas, but not the
problems (say, not being able to display data without additional
code).
I'm not sure if citation data is a "relevant part of the document" but
without further investigation I assume it to be that.
Am working on that too.
<http://purl.org/ontology/biblio/>
I expect including full metadata in the file package may be optional,
but I do expect to give guidelines on how to do that based on the
above work.
What we might do is just specify some rendered properties that would
always be included, and so the field would always know how to refresh
the content even without the full metadata.
Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
