On 18/10/06 8:07 AM, "Lisa Dusseault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Extensions > > When the client puts extension elements in a MER, MUST the server store those > unrecognized extension elements? I think the answer to this is actually that > servers often do not and should not be required to do so. That makes it hard > for clients to extend AtomPub's syntax in ways that other clients will > understand but servers don't care about. Consider the consequences: when some > enterprising client developer decides to do something cool and useful and > encounters servers that don't store their metadata in the obvious place, the > client developer is going to quickly work around that by storing in some > unobvious place. For example in HTML comments in the atom entry content, or > microformats, etc. Is that all cool? This issue also has implications on what extensions are passed through to the published feed ... a client might insert some extension metadata they want published (eg. geo-coordinates), and a client might insert some extension metadata they only want visible within the collection feed (eg. editor workflow comments) ... with the understanding also that if the server actually understands a particular extension it might result in extensions being added/modified outside of the bucket (eg. <ext:include trackbacks="yes" /> resulting in lots of <link/> elements being added) We did at one time discuss providing a bucket container specifically for the latter, with the assumption that extensions outside the bucket are data elements meant for publication. Having a bucket container would make life simpler for server implementations -- just store everything as an xml blob, the same as they do for atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Lisa, would that help? e.
