Thursday, January 13, 2005, 12:25:16 AM, you wrote:
> David Powell wrote: >>I've just posted PaceExtensionConstruct. As it is an extensibility >>Pace, it would be good if we could schedule it for discussion with the >>others. >> >>http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtensionConstruct >> >> > I like this one. I think the "atom:notation" attribute is useless, > though. If it's a simple extension, it will be obvious from the > structure of the content, which makes me wonder if the distinction is > useful. Here is a counter example: a) <atom:entry> ... <ex:info>some info</ex:info> ... </atom:entry> Would you assume that <ex:info> is a Simple Extension or a Structured Extension? ... <atom:entry> ... <ex:info><i>actually</i> it <b>could</b> contain mixed content</ex:info> ... </atom:entry> What about now? I think it would be bad to have two different mappings for the same extension depending on whether the instance happenned to contain any tags. > I can't think of a use case for extension properties in the Person > construct. I think we should leave those undefined. The only thing I can > think of putting in there is FOAF, but that works just as well as a > child of entry. There can be multiple Person constructs per entry though. One author, plus several contributors. > I don't think 9.1.1 or 9.1.2 are necessary. Yeah perhaps, my comment to Antone suggests that those paragraphs are no-ops: "somebody needs to define an extension before it can be used" -- Dave
