Re: PaceSimpleContentType

[Ken MacLeod <ken@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Ken MacLeod wrote:

> >Robert, you misunderstood Graham's point.

> No, neither of you understand the (very common) use case.
> 
> >Graham's point is [appears to be] that the above sample has an Atom
> >extension called <FlashParams> that apparently a client should
> >"pass to" the handler of the content/@src.  How should Atom spec
> >that?

> Atom shouldn't spec it.

My bad.  I had a hard time piecing together the back-thread on this.

If we're talking about special use-cases of Atom format in certain
contexts, I'm not at all concerned about private data being shared
between publishers and their intended consumers.  My "duh", that's
exactly what element-level extensibility is for.

I had had the impression we were talking about "content parameters"
within PaceSimpleContentType intended for all consumers, something
that would need to go in the spec and we'd need to test
interoperability on.

Sorry 'bout that,

  -- Ken