On Jan 15, 2005, at 10:47 AM, David Powell wrote:
I've just updated this proposal thanks to some of the feedback that I
received. There is a change history at the end of the document.
I'm OK with this. Also OK without it, but I gather that it would
improve some people's comfort levels. Anyone
I've just updated this proposal thanks to some of the feedback that I
received. There is a change history at the end of the document.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtensionConstruct
--
Dave
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:45:07 +, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I very much like the general approach of this Pace, I reckon it's very
close to what's needed.
If there is some way to lose atom:notation without introducing
ambiguity it would be better (if something is needed, what
I've just posted PaceExtensionConstruct. As it is an extensibility
Pace, it would be good if we could schedule it for discussion with the
others.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtensionConstruct
--
Dave
David Powell wrote:
I've just posted PaceExtensionConstruct. As it is an extensibility
Pace, it would be good if we could schedule it for discussion with the
others.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtensionConstruct
I like this one. I think the atom:notation attribute is useless
Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 10:51:58 PM, you wrote:
The root element of a Structured Extension construct MAY have
attributes, it MAY contain well-formed XML content, or it MAY be
empty.
It took me a minute to realize that the content of a structured
extension element could be a text
Thursday, January 13, 2005, 12:25:16 AM, you wrote:
David Powell wrote:
I've just posted PaceExtensionConstruct. As it is an extensibility
Pace, it would be good if we could schedule it for discussion with the
others.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtensionConstruct
I like
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, at 05:27 PM, David Powell wrote:
Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 10:51:58 PM, you wrote:
The root element of a Structured Extension construct MAY have
attributes, it MAY contain well-formed XML content, or it MAY be
empty.
It took me a minute to realize that the
David Powell wrote:
I think it would be bad to have two different mappings for the same
extension depending on whether the instance happenned to contain any
tags.
I'm not sure why you would have two different mappings. Wouldn't it just
be an XML property every time?
I can't think of a use
Thursday, January 13, 2005, 12:57:47 AM, you wrote:
On 12 Jan 2005, at 9:19 pm, David Powell wrote:
I've just posted PaceExtensionConstruct. As it is an extensibility
Pace, it would be good if we could schedule it for discussion with the
others.
Me likey. Except:
The root element
10 matches
Mail list logo
