Mo McRoberts wrote:
I’ve come across a requirement in the course of a project I’m working on
for a format which is a little richer and more readily-extensible than
OPML. Creating something Atom-based was a natural fit for my needs, and
so that’s what I’ve done.
I'm not yet sure whether I think this is a good idea in general, but if you
really need something more than OPML, I by far prefer your proposal to the
suggestion others are making that you somehow try and use a regular atom
feed.
Some comments on the current draft:
1. Get your own namespace for the new elements. I'm almost positive you're
not going to be able to extend the existing Atom namespace the way you're
proposing, and I don't see any advantage to doing so even if you could.
Having your own namespace doesn't stop you reusing Atom elements where
needed.
2. In your draft spec, the group element has collapsed attribute, but in
your example you're using an expanded attribute. I'm assuming one or the
other is out of date.
3. The spec seems to indicate that the collapsed attribute is in the atom
namespace. However in your example file it's in the default namespace which
would make more sense.
4. Why restrict the author element in the feedset to no more than one? That
may be all that is required for your needs, but you need to consider how
others might use the format too. Given you're using Atom elements it would
seem logical to follow Atom's lead and allow both multiple authors and
contributors.
That's all for now.
Regards
James
