RE: namespace qualifications

["Danny Ayers" <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > This isn't just a theoretical concern. Assuming we stick with the
> > superstitious version attribute, I can see wanting to come up with my
> > own container for atom entries that was better or different in
> some way,
> > and creating a new element in a new namespace for it, say aaronsw:bowl.
> > But I might want to retain atom's versioning scheme so that an
> > aggregator that supported feeds and bowls would follow the same
> > versioning rules for each. That's currently impossible.
>
> That wouldn't work automatically. (This isn't RDF, and even then...)
> You'd have to explain (in english) what it means to use the attribute
> from Atom. Then you could just as well use an unqualified attribute, and
> explain that you're using the same versioning scheme as Atom.

Quite.
I'd say there are two issues here, versioning and the mechanism for
extensions. The latter should know about the first (and possibly vice versa)
but they can be discussed separately.

The subject of this post is namespace qualifications, so in that thread I'd
like to ask for responses to Ken's proposal for a syntax pattern approach to
extension support.

The key bit is :

> The syntax follows certain repeating patterns:
>
> * "Entity" elements form the "top-level" elements, which can
>   sometimes be contained in other entity elements.  Examples of
>   Atom entities would be <site>, <feed>, <entry>, <person>, and
>   <archive> (complete set to be determined).
>
> * "Property" elements are direct children of their entity
>   elements.  Examples of property elements would be <title>,
>   <summary>, <link>, <content>, etc.
>
> * Property and entity elements are all fully qualified, either
>   in the core Atom namespace or an extension namespace.  Examples
>   usually show elements in the Atom namespace using a default
>   namespace on the root entity element.
>
> * <content> and content-like elements (title, subtitle, and
>   summary) have an associated a MIME type, mode of encoding,
>   language, and either a value inline or through a URI
>   reference.  A <content> element may have a relation that
>   indicates whether the content is an excerpt, preview, thumbnail,
>   or otherwise not the entire content.

See :
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg00000.html

Cheers,
Danny.