Monday, May 1, 2006, 8:40:57 PM, James Snell wrote:
I'm wondering if it would make sense to have a single common type
scheme that could be used consistently across implementations.
random thoughts
Type seems a bit vague, this seems to be mainly about describing how
an entry should be
Type seems a bit vague, this seems to be mainly about describing how
an entry should be processed. A few possible ways to do that:
a) Using categories and a known categorisation scheme
b) Using an ex:processAs extension
c) Using domain specific extensions, eg contact:VCard /
d)
Hey David,
Just some responses to your random thoughts. My goal is not to argue
that the category approach is best, but only to state the rationale
behind what we've done to this point.
David Powell wrote:
Monday, May 1, 2006, 8:40:57 PM, James Snell wrote:
I'm wondering if it would make
Looking at Google's gdata and IBM's open activities APP implementation
as examples, there appears to be a solid use case for defining a common
categorization scheme for associating a type label to an entry.
For instance, Gdata defines the following:
atom:category
