RE: some minor 0.2 corrections

["Danny Ayers" <danny666@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?

Changes to the syntax, structural or cosmetic.

What should clients do when they see a new
> version? An old version?

Behave according to the spec defined for that version.

What if it's embedded in another XML format
> and doesn't have an attached version number?

The handling will primarily be defined by that other format - i.e. it's out
of scope.

Until these kinds of
> questions are answered, the version attribute seems to be more like
> superstition than a technical decision.

We could wait until there was a change, then add the version number, but
tools designed for the current version would choke on the newer syntax...
Are you suggesting that the format will *never* change?

> >> 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.

True.

> > 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.

If the content can go in the XML of this feed, it can surely go in data
nested inside the feed - what's the difference?

> >> 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.

I'd like to see the example you're testing.
What is the relationship between feed and entry? Between entry and content?
I guess it would validate if you made entry a property, but that conflicts
with the notion of giving entries URIs.

Cheers,
Danny.