[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Re: Updated example
On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: >> What namespace it is in doesn't matter that much to me, but I do >> think the "Reference" class ought to be fairly generic. >> > +1 ... >> Finally, if the odf prefix is meant to relate on to the package, then >> we should change the suggest prefix: >> >> odfp? >> package? >> >> ... I don't know. >> > I'm easy but I do think we need to keep a clean separation between odf > for ODF stuff and other things. Just so that it is always clear which > is which. Exactly. So then perhaps we need a "pkg" namespace to cover most of what is currently "odf." This namespace is reserved for describing the contents of a file archive. But I wonder, then, if we don't keep the content-related stuff in the separate namespace? E.g.: odf:Element odf:Citation odf:Reference ... ??? Would seem sensible to have pkg:hasPart, but weird to see pkg:Element or pkg:Citation? Bruce
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]