On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:13:57 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2005, at 8:23 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote: > > > My answer to this question is that Atom doesn't have a model in terms > > of being able to talk about extension so there's no point discussing > > it. Extensibility is probably out of scope for the format. > > I'm not going to let that go unchallenged. The ability to put your own > markup in a feed entry and be confident that it will not cause > receiving software to break, and that it will be there for receiving > software that actually knows how to deal with it, is what many people > describe using the word "extensibility". I think that Atom is, in a > popular usage of the term (a large majority usage, I'd bet, but without > backing statistics) extensible.
FOLDOC [1] has: [[ extensible <programming> Said of a system (e.g., program, file format, programming language, protocol, etc.) designed to easily allow the addition of new features at a later date, e.g. through the use of hooks, an API or plug-ins. ]] Unless XML and XML accessories have mangled the English language totally beyond recognition, that seems a reasonable definition. > The people who insist that you have to have to buy into a > graph-theoretical KR model to be able to use the word "extensible" live > in a universe that is self-consistent, but it's not the one where I > work. -Tim Nor I. (I presume anyway - I've never encountered any of those people). Cheers, Danny. [1] http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=extensible&action=Search -- http://dannyayers.com
