Re: meta-issue: arbitrary relationships required?

[Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Danny Ayers wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The displays are based on a interpretation of the
> data based on the
> > semantics encoded in RDF/XML, specifically how a
> relationship defined
> > in an external namespace is associated between a
> resource in the RSS
> > feed and other data/resources. Atom has no such
> mechanism. 
> 
> Oh, ok. You want a place to put properties. That
> makes sense. Here is my 
> proposal:
> 
> 1.) Properties of atom:entry are child elements of
> atom:entry
> 2.) Properties of atom:feed go in atom:head
> 3.) There is no other place to put extension
> elements in Atom 1.0
> 
> Note that these extensions can be arbitrarily
> complex (you can even use 
> RDF :).
> 
> Basically, this means none of the Atom-defined
> "Common Atom Constructs" 
> are extensible, although atom:content has a "blob"
> property.

<me-too>I almost agree with this entire email
100%</me-too> 

I'm partial to allowing some form of extensibility in
link constructs IFF a clear and concise definition of
what it means to be 'link' makes it into the spec. 

=====
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #23
I will keep a special cache of low-tech weapons and train my troops in their use. That way -- even if the heroes manage to neutralize my power generator and/or render the standard-issue energy weapons useless -- my troops will not be overrun by a handful of savages armed with spears and rocks.


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail