PIDF extension schema documentation

On 27 August 2002 20:30, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> > > extensions? Personally, I think that the semantics of these
extensions
> merit
> > > inclusion in an RFC
> [snip]
> > 
> > I think the publication of extensions depends upon the use. I
certainly
> > expect lots of implementations to want to store their own
local-specific
> > presence information. It would be wise to include some information
about
> > the process but I'm not sure we should spend too much time on this.
As
> > the 'debates' in the SIMPLE group can attest, getting people to
agree on
> > much beyond OPEN and CLOSED is difficult at best.
> > 
> 
> Well, today the document just doesn't say one way or another about
> standardization of extension schemas that I could find. I think we
would all
> agree that we expect this work to be extended, and I think we should
make
> sure that extensibility is well-specified in the document either way.
And
> personally I do believe that encouraging the registration merely of
names
> for extensions seems a little less ambitious than we need to be, given
our
> objectives. Of course we shouldn't rule out private or proprietary
> extensions, but nor should we encourage that there be nothing but.
> 
> Fair enough about the difficulty of coming to consensus. I think we
should
> continue to encourage standards work in this direction, though,
however
> tedious it may be.

Yes, I think we can all agree, so before we wear ourselves out being in
violent agreement, what is really required here.

I'm not really so familiar with the way things in IETF, etc. work. Jon,
what do you consider a baseline requirement here. The things I can think
of include:

* An XML schema that can be used to validate the extension namespace
* Registration of the namespace
* An RFC describing the expected use of the extension including the
schema and referring to the namespace registration

Is this sufficient? Perhaps we need to also include a more detailed list
of what we expect the description to include. The only thing that
springs immediately to mind is that it needs to be clear whether the
extension is compatible with <basic> OPEN/CLOSED which MUST therefore be
present, or whether it is orthogonal to such a status value.

Adrian.