[Cosmo-dev] Sharing format questions

[Brian Moseley]

On 8/14/06, Morgen Sagen <morgen at osafoundation.org> wrote:

> Each kind needs to be namespace-qualified, so I was suggesting this
> syntax, especially since we have multiple kinds per item:
>
>      <kinds>
>              <value><con:Note/></value>
>              <value><cal:Event/></value>
>      </kinds>
>
> Originally I left out the <value> elements, but then I put them in to
> be consistent with the list syntax I'm using for other attributes.

okay, i agree on the namespace issue. let's drop the wrapping <value>
though and reserve that element for simple values.

> Do you mean literally there should be elements named "list" and
> "map"?  Or does the attribute name go there instead, like this (where
> 'foo' and 'bar' are attribute names):

i like having the collection type explicit in the structure of the
xml. it makes the xml easier to read, and we can write tools that can
process the data structures regardless of what the actual content item
might be. otherwise, the tools will have to understand that <con:foo>
is a list.