A new workgroup chartered to focus on specific extensions to the Atom
format would be valuable and welcome. There are several drafts, such as
the Bidi extensions, that I would really like to see finalized and
standardized. I would gladly participate.
- James
Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Jun 3, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
...
Assuming that the contents of the link element are inlined content
are adding an extension without explicitly identifying it; this may
conflict with future uses.
Our proposal is /the/ future use, so I don't see how it can conflict
with future uses. It is our intention to promote an extension of
Atom. By submitting the I-D to the IETF and by bringing this
discussion to atom-syntax, we have made the intention quite clear,
don't you agree?
...
I think the point is that this is not an extension point for general
use; thus if it is to be used it would need to be done by a spec
that's on the standards track, and updates RFC4287. For that you'll
likely need a WG to reach the consensus that *this* is the way to go.
The IETF AD for Applications has already suggested that she would be
supportive of a new WG to look at this issue. Frankly, IETF needs to
look at the issue of hierarchical representation in Atom. Frankly,
there is a lot of experience in dealing with hierarchy in
Atom/AtomPub. It would be futile to think otherwise. As examples, take
a look at Google's GData APIs and Microsoft's ADO.NET use of
Atom/AtomPub.
I was dissuaded from submitting the atompub-hierarchy I-D along
standards track, but it looks like the right way to proceed. Of
course, that also means getting together a new WG. Would you be
willing to help form such a WG?
It is a different story if Atom cannot be extended as we wish. May
be it would be useful if you or others who claim that our approach
is wrong can explain what is the process for extending Atom. Is it
creating a brand new working group?
The Atom format has extension points that allow distributed
extensibility, but the content of atom:link isn't one of them, as far
as I can tell.
It was never the intention of atom-hierarchy I-D to perform
independent extension of Atom. Therefore, I don't see this as a problem.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
