Re: Question on PaceLinkRelMechanism / Link Rel Schemas

[Bill de hÓra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny Ayers wrote:

> The mechanism is essentially the same as XML namespaces, though the 
> concrete syntax differs. This is admittedly a big disadvantage as much 
> tool support is lost.
>
> As far as I'm aware there is no suitable veto mechanism in the current 
> Atom decision-making process or in IETF groups, but if there was I'd 
> veto release of Atom 1.0 until we have a decent extension mechanism - 
> the <link> approach is one possibility, and your earlier suggestion 
> (appropriately fleshed out) is another.


Let's try a strawman.

Claim: you can't have an extensibilty mechanism without a 
corresponding semantics (aka processing model).

Claim: XML, with or without namespaces, has no such mechanism.

Conclusion: If it's required that Atom have an extensibilty 
mechanism, it will have to specified as some kind of processing 
model over and above XML+Namespaces.

cheers
Bill de hÓra