In our project, similarly to Connections, we use: <category term="public" scheme="http://.../category/visibility"/>
I'd be v. interested to know what other folks do, esp. if there is an opportunity for standardization. In fact, I could see real utility in some semi-formal way to register category schemes and terms. As has been noted [1][2], atom:category has the potential to be quite a powerful exension mechanism, getting us a "description framework" without having to use RDF (not that there's anything wrong w/ RDF ;-)). --peter keane [1]http://torrez.us/archives/2006/05/25/447/ [2]http://www.majordojo.com/2006/05/overloading-atomcategory.php#c12851 On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 08:01:38AM -0700, James M Snell wrote: > > In Connections, we've adopted a category based "flags" mechanisms, e.g. > > <category scheme="http://.../flags"; term="private" /> > > It is essentially a boolean flag. If the term "private" is included in the > entry, the entry is private, otherwise it's not. The "flags" scheme > contains a number of other types of flags relevant to the entry. So far, > this has worked reasonably well for us. > > - James > > Bill de hOra wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> are there any format or category extensions for stating view privacy or >> moderation levels on content or feeds? ) >> >> Bill >> >>
