On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:22:52 -0500, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether there every have been a need for such things in syndication land > (or, alternately, whether we can confidently state that they will never > be a need for such a thing) is a separate question. Personally I don't see a real demand need for mU-style mandatory extensions in general in Atom, but they may be the best option for versioning. In the current syndication landscape, RSS 2.0 extensions are few and far between. The "Missing isn't broken" [1] philosophy works well for RSS 1.0 extensions - applications can understand as much or as little of them as they want. I'll pass on lessons learnt from the Userland approach to versioning, but note that RSS 0.9 and RSS 1.0 are compatible at the RDF level, and their versioning/interpretation could be dealt with in a globally meaningful manner in a handful of OWL statements. What may be useful from the RSS 1.0 approach is that multiple versions of the vocabulary can be used together without any need for redefinition. Consider this: <atom:feed xmlns:atom="http://atom.now.org/"; xmlns:atom11="http://atom.future.org/";> <atom:updated>2004-11-11</atom:updated> <atom11:modified>2004-11-12</atom11:modified> ... </atom:feed> Cheers, Danny. [1] http://rdfweb.org/mt/foaflog/archives/000047.html -- http://dannyayers.com
