Re: visibility/privacy extensions

[Peter Keane <pkeane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In our project, similarly to Connections,  we use:

<category term="public" scheme="http://.../category/visibility"/>

I'd be v. interested to know what other folks do, esp. if there is an
opportunity for standardization. In fact, I could see real utility in
some semi-formal way to register category schemes and terms. As has been
noted [1][2], atom:category has the potential to be quite a powerful
exension mechanism, getting us a "description framework" without having
to use RDF (not that there's anything wrong w/ RDF ;-)).

--peter keane

[1]http://torrez.us/archives/2006/05/25/447/
[2]http://www.majordojo.com/2006/05/overloading-atomcategory.php#c12851


On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 08:01:38AM -0700, James M Snell wrote:
>
> In Connections, we've adopted a category based "flags" mechanisms, e.g.
>
>   <category scheme="http://.../flags"; term="private" />
>
> It is essentially a boolean flag.  If the term "private" is included in the 
> entry, the entry is private, otherwise it's not.  The "flags" scheme 
> contains a number of other types of flags relevant to the entry.  So far, 
> this has worked reasonably well for us.
>
> - James
>
> Bill de hOra wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> are there any format or category extensions for stating view privacy or 
>> moderation levels on content or feeds? )
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>