Re: some minor 0.2 corrections

["Aaron Swartz" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> How do you suggest looking after versioning? Surely there are bound to 
> be
> changes, and changing the namespace would make for harder work.

What kind of changes? What should clients do when they see a new 
version? An old version? What if it's embedded in another XML format 
and doesn't have an attached version number? Until these kinds of 
questions are answered, the version attribute seems to be more like 
superstition than a technical decision.

> > This hackneyed name attribute, url body system is inconsistent with 
> > our
> > methods for author and contributor and such. I suggest it be changed 
> > to
> > line up with them
>
> <generator uri="http://www.movabletype.org/?v=2.64";>Movable 
> Type</generator>

That has the exact same problems.

> Interesting, but I'd be tempted to drop the mode altogether (i.e. 
> always
> XML) and let the XML describe what's in it.

That's not a possibility; I think being able to carry non-XML formats 
is a requirement.

> > These changes also have the side effect of making feeds valid RDF.
> Not really - if feed, entry and content are considered resources (which
> sounds reasonable), the striping fails :

Yes, I'm making a couple of reasonable assumptions: that a doctype and 
<rdf:RDF> tag is wrapped around it and the doctype contains a FIXED 
attribute of rdf:parseType="Resource" for every element that contains 
children and rdf:parseType="Literal" for the <xml> element. I've tested 
this with the W3C RDF validator and it validates without warnings or 
errors.

--
Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/