Al Brown wrote:
I believe it is more about extensions to atom. How should a group that builds on top of atom using atom extensibility advertise that it can accept generic atom and/or atom+it's extensions in addition to other potential media types?In app, this is all done by media types. Both vanilla atom + atom with extensions have the same media type which cause problems.I am not sure leveraging categories as the signaling mechanism fits. -Al ...
I think the issue of the media type used for Atom entries containing CMIS extensions will come up soonish again when we try to define the payload format for PATCH:
The naive approach would be to state: update elements specified in the application/atom+xml request body, leave the others unchanged.
However this will not work well for CMIS as CMIS puts all of the backing stores repository into a single container element. So if we want PATCH to be able to manipulate individual properties, a different media type will be needed anyway. (*)
BR, Julian (*) Or properties will need to be modeled differently inside Atom entries.