On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 02, 2005 11:53:29 AM -0700 Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Right, I was just saying that if, someday, after format 1.0 and protocol 1.0 are out, we discover the need to alter the protocol, have the two separated from either other would enable us to do that without affecting applications that use the format but not the protocol.On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:I'd have to disagree. I don't think it inappropriate for elements that exist for use by the publishing protocol to live in a separate namespace from the feed itself. Rather, I think that a clean separation between the two would be desirable. Why require the feed format to be revised if we really just want to alter the publishing protocol?We are assuming that Atom will need extensions for new applications, but it should not need extensions for editing blog entries.
I'm not talking about altering the publishing protcol,
I'm talking about thingsLet me make sure I understand you correctly--are you saying that it's fine for the format and protocol to have their own elements in their own namespaces, but 1.0 of each should be finished at the same time, to ensure that we don't run into any surprises while finishing protocol 1.0 which require a format revision (eg. 1.1) in order to make protocol 1.0 work? Or are you saying that everything needed for editing should be in the format namespace, not an extension? I suppose I can't comment on the former, because I haven't been involved in the protocol discussion, but I definitely wouldn't agree with the latter.
needed to make 1.0 work. It would seem a little odd if we needed extensions
or a 1.1 for the 1.0 publishing protocol.
