>> Would somebody mind giving me an idea of why it appears to >> have become acceptable to define these data-exchange >> mechanisms just using a human-readable format that can't be >> enforced by computer? For a system involving the exchange of >> data using an Atom-derived format, the lack of a >> computer-enforceable schema seems a real handicap.
I wonder if RelaxNG and schematron wouldn't be more flexible in that context to describe your schema. > > That is one reason why I recommend using atom:category only for user > categorization, and extension elements for everything else. If you don't > want users to add, remove, and change the categories then using > atom:category will create problems because (1) there is no standard way of > communicating what schemes/categories should be exposed to the end-user > for > editing, (2) there is no (standard) way to communicate your categorization > restrictions (schema) to a client that allows the user to change the > categorization, (3) even if there was such a standard schema mechanism, it > is very difficult to convert that machine-readable schema into a user > interface that makes sense for the user. > If you're willing to create your own extension, why not simply use RDF (or one of its relatives) as foreign content? What is the added value of an extension in such case? - Sylvain
