I was thinking of profiles only specifying:
- what metadata is required to be present
- optionally for each one that's required, the maximum number that can be present
If profiles are constrained as such, they're pretty trivial to compose; if we allow them to say what *isn't* allowed to be there, it gets much more complex. It also goes against the spirit of extensibility...
On Feb 4, 2005, at 4:04 PM, James M Snell wrote:
True, but I don't think it needs to be anything all that complicated. A profile defines what metadata elements [must|must not|may|may not|should|should not] be found in that particular entry/feed. What more beyond that would be required?
- James M Snell
Mark Nottingham wrote:but then you get into a composition model for the requirements of profiles...
On Feb 4, 2005, at 3:35 PM, James Snell wrote:Absolutely, there would be a core default profile defined in the Atom
syntax spec. @profiles="core syndication" @profiles="core blog", etc.
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:19:59 -0800, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 4, 2005, at 3:13 PM, James M Snell wrote:
If a profile is indicated that the UA does not understand, the UA could safely ignore the profile and just work off the minimally required core metadata elements.
Ah, that's the rub; I'm trying to say that that set of 'core' elements
is, in and of itself, a profile.
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
-- - James Snell http://www.snellspace.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
