Peter Keane a écrit :
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 ;-)).
I don't know if trying to register category schemes is the right
approach but I am too using atom:category elements for that particular
topic. The combination of scheme+term offers a very granular way of
specifying a context in which a resource may be processed.
- Sylvain
--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
