> "Type" seems a bit vague, this seems to be mainly about describing how > an entry should be processed. A few possible ways to do that: > > a) Using categories and a known categorisation scheme > b) Using an ex:processAs extension > c) Using domain specific extensions, eg <contact:VCard /> > d) "duck-typing", eg assuming that contact:firstName implies the type.
In order of preferences: c, a, b, d > > I think that using category might be an overloading of the semantics > of category?, Well RFC 4287 says for atom:category """This specification assigns no meaning to the content (if any) of this element""" Therefore I guess it would be fine from the spec point of view. However I do agree with you that it would be overloading the general meaning we give to a category. I'm not sure, it probably depends on the circumstances. > Category is really a summary of the set of real-world concepts the > entry is about, it ought to be under control of the publisher. Agreed. > I suppose a quick vcard:* check is pretty easy with XPath. Second that point too. - Sylvain
