[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: <Type>
I have been thinking about James' feedback regarding the need for key/value pairs to describe resources, and I have been convinced that it makes more sense than the current Boolean approach taken with <Type>. Right now, we can describe a resource using only a list of "tags". While protocols can customize these to include configuration: <Type>http://example.com/version/1.1</Type> <Type>http://example.com/version/2.0</Type> Or <Type>http://example.com/popup/size/300,400</Type> This approach has been rejected by most members a few months back as a bad extensibility model. To make XRD useful we should either drop <Type> and leave it up to individual extensions to define a container that is useful for them to describe the resource, or replace <Type> with a key/value element such as: <Property key="http://example.com/version">1.1</Property> Ignore the element syntax, use of value or attributes or child elements. The key will be a URI (just like <Type>) and the value a string. A key without value is the same as a <Type> declaration. Thoughts? EHL
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]