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
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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
+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
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
--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
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.
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:
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
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
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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
