On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:41 PM, James M Snell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. Sorry to be slow to reply (I've been OOTO), but I'd be supportive and willing to participate as well. -- Kyle > > - 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 >> >> >> >
