ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread James M Snell
As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be interesting to explore the creation of a Common Extensions Namespace under which multiple standardized extensions can be grouped. I've written an initial

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread Eric Scheid
On 2/10/05 3:54 PM, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be interesting to explore the creation of a Common Extensions Namespace under which multiple

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread A. Pagaltzis
Hi James, * James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-02 08:05]: 1. Introduction The Atom Common Extensions Namespace is a single XML Namespace with which standardized Atom 1.0 extensions MAY be associated. This “MAY” seems really out of place here. Not everything is a nail with

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread Anne van Kesteren
Quoting James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The Atom Common Extensions Namespace http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom/ace; It should probably be something like http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom-extensions Having a file and folder of the same name is not technically possible. (Although you could

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread James M Snell
http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom-extensions works for me... assuming, of course, that Those-Who-Officially-Assign-Such-Things go along with it. The original .../ace URI was just a working thing pitched with full knowledge that it would likely change to something better. (I positively stink at

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread James M Snell
A. Pagaltzis wrote: Hi James, * James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-02 08:05]: 1. Introduction The Atom Common Extensions Namespace is a single XML Namespace with which standardized Atom 1.0 extensions MAY be associated. This “MAY” seems really out of place here. Not

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread James M Snell
Eric Scheid wrote: On 2/10/05 3:54 PM, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be interesting to explore the creation of a Common Extensions Namespace

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread A. Pagaltzis
* James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-02 09:50]: Might it be prudent to require of extensions that they define a prefix for all their elements? If you're talking about namespace prefixes, I don't believe so as I don't think it would be something you could reasonably enforce. No, I

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread Anne van Kesteren
Quoting A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED]: No, I mean an element name prefix. So f.ex. your indexing extension would have all its elements start with “idx-” or “x-” or something whereas the comments one would use “thr-” maybe. It is either namespaces or this. As we have namespaces, we should not

Re: Feed History -04

2005-10-02 Thread Peter Robinson
James Holderness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [About feed history and atom:link vs. fh:prev] I'm surprised nobody else has commented though. To me this seems like one of the most important extensions to Atom/RSS, and yet there aren't exactly hordes of people rushing to implement it or at least

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread James M Snell
+1, introducing something like this would pretty much negate the purpose of the common namespace. Anne van Kesteren wrote: Quoting A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED]: No, I mean an element name prefix. So f.ex. your indexing extension would have all its elements start with “idx-” or “x-” or

Re: Feed History -04

2005-10-02 Thread James M Snell
Peter Robinson wrote: As far as the question at hand, I would be able to implent it in my Atom/RSS2 feed generator easily enough either way. Obviously it will be a small amount of extra work if there is a format-dependent difference. Playing devil's advocate for a minute, is it very wrong to

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread Walter Underwood
--On October 2, 2005 9:35:28 AM +0200 Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having a file and folder of the same name is not technically possible. (Although you could emulate the effect of course with some mod_rewrite.) Namespaces aren't files, only names. So the limitations of some

Re: Feed History -04

2005-10-02 Thread Luke Arno
On 10/2/05, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Robinson wrote: As far as the question at hand, I would be able to implent it in my Atom/RSS2 feed generator easily enough either way. Obviously it will be a small amount of extra work if there is a format-dependent difference.

Re: Feed History -04

2005-10-02 Thread James Holderness
Luke Arno wrote: No, it is not wrong to use atom:link in RSS2. There is existing precedence for this and it really does make a whole lot of sense. yup. http://opensearch.a9.com/spec/opensearchresponse/1.1/ for instance. Also used in the Universal Subscription Mechanism:

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread James M Snell
Bill de hÓra wrote: James M Snell wrote: As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be interesting to explore the creation of a Common Extensions Namespace under which multiple standardized

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread Justin Fletcher
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, James M Snell wrote: Bill de hÓra wrote: James M Snell wrote: As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be interesting to explore the creation of a Common Extensions Namespace

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread James M Snell
Justin Fletcher wrote: Some questions spring to mind... What should implementors do when both feed history and ace namespaced elements with equivilent meanings are present - which of the two should resolve this conflict ? Same thing that implementors should do when they encounter any

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread Justin Fletcher
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, James M Snell wrote: Justin Fletcher wrote: Some questions spring to mind... What should implementors do when both feed history and ace namespaced elements with equivilent meanings are present - which of the two should resolve this conflict ? Same thing that

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread Mark Nottingham
My .02, FWIW, and off the top of my head; I think this is a well-intentioned effort, but at the wrong end of the process. The market (i.e., users and implementors) should have a go at sorting out at what's common/prevalent enough to merit this sort of thing; having a co-ordinated