- From: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:28:04 +0100
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>, Vladimir Levantovsky <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On 2 Jun 2010, at 17:14, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:17 AM
>> Yes. There's much repetition. How about:
>>
>> <ext lang=en>
>> EU Greeting:
>> Message: Hello!
>> Date: 2010-06-01
>> </ext>
>>
>> <ext lang=nl>
>> EU Groet
>> Bericht: Hallo!
>> Datum: 2010-06-01
>> </ext>
>>
>> <ext lang=fr>
>> EU Salut
>> Message: Bonjour!
>> Date: 2010-06-01
>> </ext>
>>
>> This is the minimalist in me talking, I can probably live with more
>> structure, but my experience is that schemas with much structure tend
>> to be less understood and, consequently, less used.
>>
>
> I wonder if anyone from Microsoft ever +1'ed Hakon. So here is the
> historical moment:
>
> +1 !
Is a simple block of plain-text all the "extension" that anyone will ever want? I'm surprised, I thought there was a desire to be able to identify elements within the metadata - and this would include elements within future/vendor-specific extensions.
Of course, even within Tal's proposal there's nothing to stop the author doing
<extension>
<item>
<name>
<text><!-- blank, I don't care about providing a name --></text>
</name>
<value>
<text lang="en">
EU Greeting:
Message: Hello!
Date: 2010-06-01
</text>
<text lang="nl">
EU Groet
Bericht: Hallo!
Datum: 2010-06-01
</text>
<text lang="en">
EU Salut
Message: Bonjour!
Date: 2010-06-01
</text>
</value>
</item>
</extension>
if there is no desire to express any more detailed structure within the extension; just treat it all as a single <item>.
JK
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 16:29:09 UTC