[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Atom extensibility

To: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>, Henry Story <henry.story@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Atom extensibility
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:17:07 -0800
Cc: "'Atom WG'" <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx

At 7:48 AM -0800 1/7/05, Tim Bray wrote:

I think that the charter requirements on extensibility will be filled adequately with PaceExtendingAtom. I think they would be filled still better by adopting PaceMustUnderstandElement, but apparently others are unconvinced. Extensibility via a mapping to RDF seems to me to add a lot of complexity (most people have never bothered to learn graph theory) without any real benefit. -Tim

Wearing my co-chair hat, I fully agree with Tim. We are already fulfilling our charter requirements without defining a mapping to RDF.

A document that shows another way to do extensibility through RDF is fine, but it is not required by the charter (nor by the vast majority of active posters on the list).

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

References:
- Atom extensibility
  - From: Henry Story
- Re: Atom extensibility
  - From: Tim Bray

Prev by Date: Re: Atom extensibility
Next by Date: Re: The Atom Format end-game
Previous by thread: Re: Atom extensibility
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread