Sunday, August 21, 2005, 8:46:54 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 7:24 PM +0100 8/21/05, Peter Robinson wrote: >>I do something similar, intending it to mean "the location of the items >>described by this feed" (when there is a single location). > Ah, I had missed that. This leads to a question for the mailing list. > Does an informative extension that appears at the feed level (as > compared to in entries) indicate: > a) this information pertains to each entry > b) this information pertains to the feed itself > c) this information pertains to each entry and to the feed itself > d) completely unknown unless specified in the extension definition In my RDF model, feed extensions (together with properties such as atom:generator), are considered to be properties of the FeedInstance. EntryInstance's are related to FeedInstance's using containingFeed and sourceFeed properties. (Entry's and Feed's can have multiple EntryInstance's and FeedInstance's, but that's not really relevant...) So, feed extensions don't automatically inherit to entries in the model (unlike atom:author which does), but for a given entry you can locate its feed and take a look at its extension properties, so it isn't like the information is lost. So I'd say b); but as long as you aren't throwing away atom:feed data, that shouldn't prevent an application using feed extensions to do a) or c). I think that the interpretation b) is probably what is supported by section 6 in the absence of any talk about extension inheritance. -- Dave
