Re: Entry types

["Sylvain Hellegouarch" <sh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> "Type" seems a bit vague, this seems to be mainly about describing how
> an entry should be processed.  A few possible ways to do that:
>
> a) Using categories and a known categorisation scheme
> b) Using an ex:processAs extension
> c) Using domain specific extensions, eg <contact:VCard />
> d) "duck-typing", eg assuming that contact:firstName implies the type.


In order of preferences: c, a, b, d

>
> I think that using category might be an overloading of the semantics
> of category?,

Well RFC 4287 says for atom:category

"""This specification assigns no meaning to the content (if any) of this
element"""

Therefore I guess it would be fine from the spec point of view. However I
do agree with you that it would be overloading the general meaning we give
to a category.

I'm not sure, it probably depends on the circumstances.
> Category is really a summary of the set of real-world concepts the
> entry is about, it ought to be under control of the publisher.

Agreed.

> I suppose a quick vcard:* check is pretty easy with XPath.

Second that point too.

- Sylvain