2006/6/9, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
(The presumption is that systems that only allow one category per entry
are not likely to define multiple schemes in an app:categories element)
Note that this would be possible with categoryGroup:
<app:categories fixed="yes">
<app:categoryGroup exclusive="yes">
<atom:category term="foo" scheme="http://myblog.example.net/categories"; />
<atom:category term="bar" scheme="http://myblog.example.net/categories"; />
<atom:category term="contact"
scheme="http://myblog.example.net/categories2"; />
<atom:category term="event"
scheme="http://myblog.example.net/categories2"; />
<atom:category term="review"
scheme="http://myblog.example.net/categories2"; />
</app:categoryGroup>
</app:categories>
Another solution could be to add an "exclusive" attribute to
app:categories, indicating that categories from one scheme only are
allowed (combined with app:[EMAIL PROTECTED], you can then define a
"fixed and exclusive" set spanning multiple schemes):
<app:categories fixed="yes" exclusive="yes">
<app:scheme
ref="http://myblog.example.net/categories";
fixed="yes" exclusive="yes">
...
</app:scheme>
<app:scheme
ref="http://myblog.example.net/categories2";
fixed="yes" exclusive="yes">
...
</app:scheme>
</app:categories>
But I'm fine with app:scheme and app:categories as you describe them
(we might also have to rename app:categories to app:categorySchemes
–yes, I know, categorySchemes or category-schemes? better to avoid
those multiple-words XML names–, the meaning of "fixed" would became
more obvious):
<app:categorySchemes fixed="yes">
<app:scheme
ref="http://myblog.example.net/categories";
fixed="yes" exclusive="no">
<atom:category term="foo" />
<atom:category term="bar" />
</app:scheme>
<app:scheme
ref="http://myblog.example.net/tags";
fixed="no" exclusive="no" />
<app:scheme
ref="http://myblog.example.net/type";
fixed="yes" exclusive="yes">
<atom:category term="contact" />
<atom:category term="event" />
<atom:category term="review" />
</app:scheme>
</app:categorySchemes>
--
Thomas Broyer
