Why can't an app:categories appearing within an introspection document specify the scheme attribute?
e.g., i may want to do something like: <collection> <categories fixed="yes" scheme="http://example.org/type";> <atom:category term="Contact" /> <atom:category term="Todo" /> <atom:category term="Meeting" /> </categories> <categories fixed="no" scheme="http://example.org/tags"; /> </collection> Also, some categorization schemes (e.g. GData's "kind" categories) are mutually exclusive. e.g. only one category option in a scheme is valid. To indicate such, an exclusive="yes|no" attribute could be used, with a default of "no" e.g., <categories fixed="yes" exclusive="yes" scheme="http://example.org/type";> <atom:category term="Contact" /> <atom:category term="Todo" /> <atom:category term="Meeting" /> </categories> Also, in regard to the statement, "Collections that indicate a fixed set MAY reject members that include categories not specified in the provided listing".. is an entry required to use the same label attribute value on a category as what may be listed in the category listing? e.g., if the category listing says <category term="foo" label="Foo" />, can the entry contain <category term="foo" label="Bar" /> and still be accepted? - James Tim Bray wrote: > > At http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceAPPCategories > > Based on PaceCategoryListing2. In an introspection document, you either > have an href= or you don't. If not, you contain atom:category elements > directly. If you do, it has to point to a Categories document, whose > root is <app:categories> with <atom:category> children. The only thing > that's not obvious is that <app:categories>, when it's the root of a > Categories doc, can have a @scheme attribute to provide a default, if > you want a couple of hundred categories and not to provide the > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for all of them. > > This seems to be about the minimum I can think of that would give APP > category listing, without trying to stretch too far or solve the whole > problem. > > -Tim > >
