On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:46:04 -0800, Ezra Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FWIW, the protocol design team came out pretty firmly against the idea
> of enforcing a hierarchy on categories
> (categories-as-discoverable-protocol-items, that is). DAGs were thought
> to be a realistic use-case, and maybe other non-hierarchical
> structures, too.
>
> If a category element is needed in the feed format, let's not impose
> any relationships between them. What use could it have? If there are
> existing schemes that are hierarchical, then consumers can make use of
> that meaning.
I want to make sure I understand the full import of what you are
saying here. Are you suggesting Atom not define any mechanism for
defining hierarchy and/or other relationships?
One of the earlier proposals (cannot find the Pace now) was for
something along the lines of:
<category>Animals
<category>Mammals
<category>Felines</category>
</category>
</category>
I have the same problems with using the slash character as you, and
this seems a reasonable mechanism for describing hierarchy in ad hoc
systems (if a bit verbose).
Add in @id and I could declare all my categories in the Feed and then
reference them in each entry:
<category refid="foo" /><!-- Felines -->
<category refid="bar" /><!-- Virii -->
Lance Lavandowska
