On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 04:35:48 -0500, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most of these things could be quite nicely handled by a simple
> "tag/value" structure. Something like:
>
> <prop name="LinkRank">333</prop>
> <prop name="BSValue">$33.03</prop>
> <prop name="classification">politics</prop>
> <prop name="priority">very_high</prop>
They could be handled this way, but as it stands there isn't any way
of recognising the properties in an unambiguous fashion. I don't think
a centralized registry is the answer either. But if there was a simple
generalized interpretation of material from other namespaces, we can
remove ambiguity and use the XML more like, errm, XML:
e.g.
<entry ...>
<pubsub:LinkRank>333</pubsub:LinkRank>
...
</entry>
The spec could contain words to the effect that elements like this
SHOULD be interpreted as a named property of the enclosing entry, the
value being the child text node. The use of namespaces will avoid
clashes, so this won't be interpreted as the same thing as
<google:PageRank>333</google:PageRank>.
> Let's focus on the mechanism for communicating properties rather
> then the specific properties that are to be communicated.
Yes please. I'd favour something like Robert's PacePropertyDesign
(which would probably find it's way to consensus without the RDF
references).
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://dannyayers.com
