Isn't the AtomPub RFC 5023? On Nov 3, 11:40 pm, John Panzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The OpenSocial data syntax is based on an open standard (Atom, RFC 4287) > with well defined extension points. OpenSocial data as defined today is > itself just a compatible extension of the base Atom format, and of > course there can be others added in. > > My personal take is that there shouldn't be any problem in adding > additional optional fields using the defined Atom extension mechanisms, > though obviously you can't expect every container to honor them. It > would be helpful to have a forum for discussing such extensions so that > no one reinvents the wheel, and I think that would be one good use of > this mailing list (and the API mailing list of course). > > John
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial Container Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-container?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
