-1 on PaceExtendingAtom
It looks like this would not allow the proposal I have just made that permits Atom to be extended into RDF. It is unnecessarily complex, over engineered, and even contradictory. Here is a much simpler proposal:
You can extend Atom any way you want (with foreign namespaced elements), as long as the following conditions are met:
1- if all those elements are removed, you end up with a valid Atom document X
2- the meaning of the document X is not incompatible with the unabbreviated document
(2) need hardly be mentioned, because it will be assumed that your document needs to be parsable by simple Atom parsers, and so it would be foolish to try to say something that most parsers would misunderstand.
That seems much more simple and much clearer. Anything more requires serious justification.
Henry Story
On 11 Nov 2004, at 00:04, Tim Bray wrote:
I had a talk about Atom and extensibility with Dave Orchard this morning, and he convinced me that there is benefit in a must-understand facility, but then educated me as to how complex it can be to implement.
Based on that discussion, I have just published PaceMustUnderstandElement and PaceExtendingAtom. Note that the WG could reject PaceMustUnderstandElement and I think that PaceExtendingAtom would still work.
For convenience: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMustUnderstandElement http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtendingAtom
-Tim
