Subject: Re: PaceSimpleContentType and friends

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:22:10 -0600

On Tuesday, August 31, 2004, at 06:24  PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> * <content> is unique, don't make it the same construct as the other 
> elements
Agreed.

> * allow only one <content>, use links for alternate representations 
> and "relateds" (content alernate). Or, call out to various resources 
> in (x)html. One <content> allows sufficient granularity for accessible 
> alternatives to be referenced by <link>.
I don't like <link> for this purpose for reasons I've mentioned 
elsewhere [1] [2].  I'd prefer either multiple <contents>s or some new 
element for pointing to alternates.

> * allow any XML, base64, and @src in <content>. Disagreement will 
> continue about whether MIME is appropriate for @type. Don't let it be 
> a stumbling block right now. Limiting the XML allowed in <content> 
> will only ensure that new values are inserted in @type.
As long as we have some way to point to external content, so that 
base64 isn't the ONLY solution for non text | (x)html data, then agreed.

> * <title>, <tagline>, <copyright>, <info>, <summary> become "Textual 
> Constructs". Plain text and (X)HTML are ok. That's it. It might get 
> stripped.
Agreed.

[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg09266.html
[2] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceLinkPurpose

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:00:50 +0200

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:06:10 -0400, Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>  
wrote:

> (1) should we allow content-by-reference.

Yes, I think so.

> (2) should we allow non-textual content?

-0.1. I really have no idea. I won't halt consensus no matter which way  
the pendulum swings on this one.

> My preference is that content-by-reference and non-textual content be  
> allowed *only* on the content element.  If either is present, then a  
> textual summary is required.

+1.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:27:45 +0200

> * <content> is unique, don't make it the same construct as the other  

I agree.

> * allow only one <content>, use links for alternate representations and  
> "relateds" (content alernate). Or, call out to various resources in  
> (x)html. One <content> allows sufficient granularity for accessible  

I disagree here, for most of the same reasons as Antone.

> continue about whether MIME is appropriate for @type. Don't let it be a  
> stumbling block right now. Limiting the XML allowed in <content> will  
> only ensure that new values are inserted in @type.

In PaceContentAsTextOrHtml there is already defined three content modes;  
Text, (escaped) HTML and XML. As long as we can enumerate certain MIME  
types beneath these content modes, we're done.

All textual and XML-based content should be allowed inline. Everything  
else should be referenced with @src. I'm -0.2 on inline base64, but won't  
halt consensus on it.

> Constructs". Plain text and (X)HTML are ok. That's it. It might get  

Sunds okay.