Thanks Rich. I agree that from a user profile perspective the main
question is Andre's:
"Should the protocol cleanly support user profile schemas defined
outside the TC?"
In addition I think that Richard's question leads us to a more generic
question that also needs to be answered:
"Should we provide v2 meta data to describe the use and location of
an extension?"
The two questions become related only if the answer to Andre's question
is no though I beleive it would be incorrect to say "yes" to the first
question merely because you think the answer to the second question is
"no".
-Mike-
Rich Thompson wrote:
In reflecting on this mornings call,
I think Mike is right in that we have not well enough defined the
problem
we are working on and this is complicating discussing solutions. My
summary
of the problem statements I have heard is:
Richard: The v1 metadata for custom
user profiles items is insufficient to locate and understand the items
(i.e. reasonably support mapping).
Subbu: The v1 spec left where
custom user profile items are placed ambiguous.
Andre: The protocol should cleanly
support user profile schemas defined outside the TC.
I think Subbu's problem statement is
a narrowing of Richard's with a strong indication of a preferred
solution.
I think Andre's statement is the broadest of the three proposed problem
statements. If we can settle on which one(s) of these, if any, we are
willing
to accept as problems, it should help scope the discussion/solution in
a productive manner.
Rich
