On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:23:35 +0200, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro@gmail.com> wrote:
1) The use of multiple schemes and multiple attributes, permissible in headers may cause significant rendering and referential issues in the body. I'm fairly confident most parsers will have problems with this approach. If this scheme is also intended for a body, I'll create and example to examine the doms
I am not sure I understand, could you give a simple example perhaps?
I think before we start producing examples using extensions, we should define the types of extension permitted and define where they are placed in the model scheme.
As far as I understand we have, depending how you see things, a single namespace for attributes. If we go with the latest proposal and say that a Category can define a set of attributes we indeed need a policy on how these names should be constructed. Without to much thought put into this I would suggest a policy maybe like this: <reverse_domain>.<category_term>.<attribute> Any reverse domain starting with "occi" would be forbidden and only used be standard OCCI attributes. Another alternative could be: ext.<reverse_domain>.<category>.<attribute> Example: Let's say a provider need a few extra attributes to describe a compute resource, in this case the desired boot priority. GET /compute/vm01 Category: compute; scheme="http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/resource#"; title="Compute Resource" Category: compute; scheme="http://provider.com/occi/resource#"; title="Vendor Compute Resource Extensions" Attribute: occi.compute.memory="2.0" Attribute: occi.compute.speed="3.8" Attribute: com.provider.compute.boot_priority="harddisk,cdrom" Would that make sense? regards, Ralf