Subject: RE: AtomPubIssuesList

From: "David Orchard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:40:27 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:50 AM
> To: Atom-Syntax Syntax
> Subject: AtomPubIssuesList
> 
> I note a lack of a proposal for getting extensibility points 
> right, with 
> MustUnderstand and MustIgnore and so on.  Until or unless there is a 
> concrete proposal, such issues will not be tracked.
> 

I think I was asked to look into this, and accepted the action item.  I spoke with Tim Bray last week, and he assured me that this was not a high priority item, especially when I mentioned I was looking at what Atom would look like in WSDL 2.0 and WSDL 2.0 has hopefully a strong HTTP binding.  Is this wrong?

I would have thought that you:
- would have an "extensibility" action item outstanding 
- would check with the action item owner periodically
- would have an open issue with an issue raiser and the assigned action item.

The only issue I see related is the PaceEntryElementNeedsVersionAttribute.

Cheers,
Dave

---

From: Ken MacLeod <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 2004 11:55:10 -0500

"David Orchard" <[email-masked]> writes:

> [Sam Ruby wrote:]
> > right, with MustUnderstand and MustIgnore and so on.  Until or
> > unless there is a concrete proposal, such issues will not be
> > tracked.
> 
> I think I was asked to look into this, and accepted the action item.
> I spoke with Tim Bray last week, and he assured me that this was not
> a high priority item, especially when I mentioned I was looking at
> what Atom would look like in WSDL 2.0 and WSDL 2.0 has hopefully a
> strong HTTP binding.  Is this wrong?
> 

One format extensibility issue that is currently on a lot of people's
minds is the "link construct", in PaceLinkConstruct, recently
summarized by Robert Sayre,

    http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg06039.html

and with a noticable post by none other than yourself back in
December,

    http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg01726.html

The "link construct" issue is a current permathread.

My take on it is, "wait until PaceLinkConstruct comes to the top of
the queue, and for now let's focus on model instead of markup".  What
would be good to know from an extensibility perspective is if you will
be looking at this issue specifically while it's waiting to come to
the top of the queue, and may have a proposal by then, or should
others be working on it in the background.

  -- Ken

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:49:35 +0200

>>strong HTTP binding.  Is this wrong?

Personally I believe extensibility to be one of the highest priorities. 
As Ken says, to date most of the suggestions relating to this have 
focussed on the link element (e.g. PaceLinkRelMechanism). However this I 
think has been with the general tacit assumption that the addition of 
extensions as elements/attributes in other namespaces would (somehow) 
serve the purpose. It may well, but I believe it is in the interests of 
the project to define constraints and if possible common interpretation 
of this, along the lines of RDF/XML or the (now rather dusty) 
ExtensibilityFramework proposed on the Wiki.

[snip]

>others be working on it in the background.

Yep, that sounds good.

btw, Randy's been working on Atom in WSDL:

http://www.kbcafe.com/iBLOGthere4iM/?guid=20040609151444

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

Raw
http://dannyayers.com