Re: Extension mechanism

[Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Danny Ayers wrote:
> > I believe that such a mechanism can be defined without any impact on the
> > work that has been done so far. All I think that is needed in the core 
> > is a
> > means of saying whether an included element from another namespace is
> > additional content, *or* is additional information about its parent.

It's worth exploring, but could be a rat-hole.  The line between 
metadata and data is super-fuzzy.  Also, unless we can figure out how to 
be really clear what the expected impact on client software is, it's not 
worth doing.

Sam Ruby wrote:

> * metadata is actually a matter of perspective.  Is the issued date 
> content or metadata?  If LiveJournal wants to capture the mood of the 
> person while composing this entry, is that additional content or 
> additional information about the entry?

Yep.  THere are going to be a million corner cases.

> * if we go down this path, it would be worth having something analagous 
> to the 'mustUnderstand' attribute as defined in the SOAP specification.

This seems like a good idea, it's been more or less proven to work in 
the SOAP context.

As I've said before, we shouldn't be trying to invent whizzy new 
technology here, we should just be trying for a clean clear 
specification of what's been proven to work.
--
Cheers, Tim Bray
        (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)