Re: Atom extensibility

[Bill de hÓra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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


I won't talk about 'complexity' here, but will talk about cost/benefit. 
My take on this is that extensibility via a mapping to RDF seems to me 
to add cost for implementors and those processing Atom. Writing Atom as 
RDF is cheap enough. Not enough people are processing RSS1.0 and other 
RDF formats *as* RDF; I speculate that indicates an issue on receipt of 
the data.

I'm +1 on not requiring an RDF mapping for Atom. Those of us that like 
to use RDF can figure out how to.

cheers
Bill