Is there some expectation that the proposed WG would estabish a new "Atom
Extensions" namespace? Or simply that extension would get a thumbs up or
thumbs down to be in the Atom namespace?
--peter keane
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, James M Snell wrote:
Best Practices, perhaps. I'm not so sure about guidelines. At the very
least, a new WG will need to clarify exactly how, when and why new elements
are added to the Atom NS vs. created in their own namespace.
- James
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I *want* to get these issues resolved, I just don't
think we'll have much hope of coming to a reasonable consensus of many of
these issues until we can get a WG going.
Then, is the new WG expected to establish guidelines for atom extensions ?
I believe that such guidelines would be very useful.
Cheers,
