On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:12:23 +0000, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One of the reasons for proposing PaceExtensionConstruct [1] was to allow > existing RSS extensions and RDF properties to be used in Atom. > > If we have no model for extension elements, other than that they are bits of > opaque infoset hanging in specific but meaningless places, then it seems that > we need to redefine all existing extensions for use in Atom on a case-by-case > basis. This thread seems to confirm that. > > Is that the best that we can come up with?
Try asking again in a year or so's time, when we have an audio extension defined by Microsoft for Microsoft applications, a threading extension defined by Google for Google applications and a video extension defined by Yahoo for Yahoo applications. Case-by-case will favour those with the weight to ensure enough deployment to bootstrap general adoption. The long term network-effect driven gains of interop are outweighed by the short-term competitive advantage of features. Proprietary Atom solutions here we come! Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
