Subject: PaceProfileAttribute

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:03:24 -0700

-1: One profile (or maybe set of profiles) per document is better in my 
opinion.  If an aggregator aggregates entries with different profiles, 
it can either fix them up as needed to conform to a common profile, or 
if multiple profiles can be specified at the top level, declare the 
profiles for all of the entries in the document there.

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:17:01 -0800

This is entirely possible also.  Just to be clear tho, you're not -1'ing 
the idea of profiles, just the allowing of the @profile attribute on 
sub-elements (e.g. entries contained in feeds) correct?  This is an 
important distinction because I'm definitely not married to the syntax 
as presented but would definitely like to see us adopt the profile 
mechanism in general.

- James M Snell

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:34:13 -0700

I'm in favor of profiles, just -1 to allowing @profile on sub-elements. 
  So I prefer PaceProfile to PaceProfileAttribute.

On Monday, February 7, 2005, at 02:17  PM, James M Snell wrote:

> This is entirely possible also.  Just to be clear tho, you're not 
> -1'ing the idea of profiles, just the allowing of the @profile 
> attribute on sub-elements (e.g. entries contained in feeds) correct?  
> This is an important distinction because I'm definitely not married to 
> the syntax as presented but would definitely like to see us adopt the 
> profile mechanism in general.
>
> - James M Snell
>
> Antone Roundy wrote:
>> -1: One profile (or maybe set of profiles) per document is better in 
>> my opinion.  If an aggregator aggregates entries with different 
>> profiles, it can either fix them up as needed to conform to a common 
>> profile, or if multiple profiles can be specified at the top level, 
>> declare the profiles for all of the entries in the document there.
>