Interoperability requires that clients and servers agree on the wave content structure (schema). There is work in process for the conversation model, but there is no general mdoel for how a client or server can describe the allowed schema of a wave it creates. In XML this is already solved. And, while wave documents are not XML, they allow a similar structure. It would seem to me that a very useful addition to wave would be the ability specify and determine the schema associated with a wave/wavelet/document.
There is already some model code that supports this (DocumentSchema and BootstrapDocument), but there is no way for a server to know which schema, if any, should be enforced. There seems to be two possible ways to handle this. One is to associate a schema with a particular namespace prefix. So, for example, documents with names starting with "b+" would have to conform to the blip schema and documents with the name "conversation" would be required to conform the conversation schema and blips references therein would have to conform to the blip schema. An alternative would be to add some means to specify a schema for a wave/wavelet/document upon creation or later during modification. In the later case, there would need to be a mechanism for specifying the schema to use, either by well known name, of by including the actual specification. The schema to namespace mapping seems the easiest to implement but the other method provides more possible flexibility at the expense of additional complexity and possible conflict resolution issues. Has Google, or anyone else considered this matter? -tad -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
