Re: A question regarding multiple content

[Sjoerd Visscher <sjoerd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeremy Gray wrote:

> For a while now I have noticed the vast majority (if not all) examples of
> entry XML including (or at least acknowledging the allowed use of) multiple
> content.
>
> However, a long-standing poll on multiple content (located at
> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/ContentDiscussion) shows multiple
> content losing to what I'll call the "zero or one" crowd by a notable margin
> (on percentage, obviously, not sheer numbers).

Yeah, I think this is why the 0.2 snapshot shows the
multipart/alternative example. This is a possible solution how to do
multiple content versions with one content element. With the added
advantage of knowing the relation between the multiple content elements,
and being based on proir art (e-mail).

Some discussion took place here:
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1500.html
Ken McLeod noted that once people agree this is the best solution,
multipart mime-types could be "reserved for future use".

Because this was just after http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1499.html,
where Tim Bray pledged for no inventions. We should keep remembering
that (it's hard, I know). Atom 1.0 should not contain "radical new
capabilities". It should however not close the door on inventions, the
multipart mime-type allows us to do exactly that. But it's not something
we should be focusing on now, certainly not in examples that outsiders
will see as an introduction to Atom.

--
Sjoerd Visscher
http://w3future.com/weblog/