+1 on posting it as a proposal to the spec list On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Ian Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last night I completed the work on serialization of the rest XML. There > were quite a lot of issues with the XSD that was published with 0.8.1, some > around compatibility with the text of the spec, some around compatibility > with the layout of the Json feeds. My understanding is that that there is a > desire to make the XML and JSON feeds as semantically similar as possible. > These tensions and the hard reality of implementation has (IMHO) forced me > to rewrite the XSD into a form that works. This XSD is nothing official, but > might form, hopefully form the basis of the 0.9 XSD, but if it doesn't, > thats Ok as the xml serializing framework is now quite configurable. > There are still some tensions: > XML is typed by its container elements, json has no type safety. > the XML format sits between the json format and the atom format, and atom > uses some of the same container (eg <entry>) forcing IMHO > /os:response/os:entry(0..n)/person as opposed to > /response/person/entry(0..n) as the ATOM path would be > /atom:feed/atom:entry(0..n)/atom:content/os:person. > > So the reason for coming to the list: > 1) The XSD that all the java tests are being validated against is > http://people.apache.org/~ieb/examples/opensocial.xsd<http://people.apache.org/%7Eieb/examples/opensocial.xsd>(there > is a version in svn) and examples of the documents may be found > http://people.apache.org/~ieb/examples/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eieb/examples/> > 2) I understand from Chris that the PHP version doesn't validate against > XSD, so *if* this became the 0.9 XSD, then there would need to be some work > there. > > WDYT? > Should this go as a proposal to the spec list ? > > Ian >
