On Jun 3, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
None of this is your fault; the extension model in Atom isn't terribly well-specified.
I don't know of anyone else complaining about this. I am not sure this is the general perception. Can you provide some evidence to back up this claim?
Regardless of how you serialise the hierarchy, at some point the document you're going to end up with will not be very useful to a generic Atom processor (as deployed today), because the majority of the information is in extensions. When that happens, it's worth considering minting a new media type to identify the document, so that people can differentiate them.
I don't see any reason to mint a new media type for dealing with extensions such as the one I am proposing in atom-hierarchy-ID. Can you explain what will break and in what way we are creating an incompatible extension of Atom to force us out of application/atom+xml?
